From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:47533 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755121AbcGYVl0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:41:26 -0400 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Sinclair Yeh , Thomas Hellstrom Subject: [PATCH 4.6 139/203] drm/vmwgfx: Check pin count before attempting to move a buffer Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:55:54 -0700 Message-Id: <20160725203435.061755081@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20160725203429.221747288@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20160725203429.221747288@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 4.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Sinclair Yeh commit 4ed7e2242b637bc4af0416e4aa9f945db30fb44a upstream. In certain scenarios, e.g. when fbdev is enabled, we can get into a situation where a vmw_framebuffer_pin() is called on a buffer that is already pinned. When this happens, ttm_bo_validate() will unintentially remove the TTM_PL_FLAG_NO_EVICT flag, thus unpinning it, and leaving no way to actually pin the buffer again. To prevent this, if a buffer is already pinned, then instead of calling ttm_bo_validate(), just make sure the proposed placement is compatible with the existing placement. Signed-off-by: Sinclair Yeh Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_dmabuf.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_dmabuf.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_dmabuf.c @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ int vmw_dmabuf_pin_in_placement(struct v { struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = &buf->base; int ret; + uint32_t new_flags; ret = ttm_write_lock(&dev_priv->reservation_sem, interruptible); if (unlikely(ret != 0)) @@ -60,7 +61,12 @@ int vmw_dmabuf_pin_in_placement(struct v if (unlikely(ret != 0)) goto err; - ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, placement, interruptible, false); + if (buf->pin_count > 0) + ret = ttm_bo_mem_compat(placement, &bo->mem, + &new_flags) == true ? 0 : -EINVAL; + else + ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, placement, interruptible, false); + if (!ret) vmw_bo_pin_reserved(buf, true); @@ -91,6 +97,7 @@ int vmw_dmabuf_pin_in_vram_or_gmr(struct { struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = &buf->base; int ret; + uint32_t new_flags; ret = ttm_write_lock(&dev_priv->reservation_sem, interruptible); if (unlikely(ret != 0)) @@ -102,6 +109,12 @@ int vmw_dmabuf_pin_in_vram_or_gmr(struct if (unlikely(ret != 0)) goto err; + if (buf->pin_count > 0) { + ret = ttm_bo_mem_compat(&vmw_vram_gmr_placement, &bo->mem, + &new_flags) == true ? 0 : -EINVAL; + goto out_unreserve; + } + ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, &vmw_vram_gmr_placement, interruptible, false); if (likely(ret == 0) || ret == -ERESTARTSYS) @@ -161,6 +174,7 @@ int vmw_dmabuf_pin_in_start_of_vram(stru struct ttm_placement placement; struct ttm_place place; int ret = 0; + uint32_t new_flags; place = vmw_vram_placement.placement[0]; place.lpfn = bo->num_pages; @@ -185,10 +199,15 @@ int vmw_dmabuf_pin_in_start_of_vram(stru */ if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM && bo->mem.start < bo->num_pages && - bo->mem.start > 0) + bo->mem.start > 0 && + buf->pin_count == 0) (void) ttm_bo_validate(bo, &vmw_sys_placement, false, false); - ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, &placement, interruptible, false); + if (buf->pin_count > 0) + ret = ttm_bo_mem_compat(&placement, &bo->mem, + &new_flags) == true ? 0 : -EINVAL; + else + ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, &placement, interruptible, false); /* For some reason we didn't end up at the start of vram */ WARN_ON(ret == 0 && bo->offset != 0);