linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:36:46 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
Cc:	Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@...pmail.org>,
	Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and
 struct_mutex.

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 18:04 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 23:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:02 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > >  
> > > It looks to me like the driver preferred locking order is
> > > 
> > > object_mutex (which happens to be the device global struct_mutex)
> > >   mmap_sem
> > >      offset_mutex.
> > > 
> > > So if one could avoid using the struct_mutex for object bookkeeping (A 
> > > separate lock) then
> > > vm_open() and vm_close() would adhere to that locking order as well, 
> > > simply by not taking the struct_mutex at all.
> > > 
> > > So only fault() remains, in which that locking order is reversed. 
> > > Personally I think the trylock ->reschedule->retry method with proper 
> > > commenting is a good solution. It will be the _only_ place where locking 
> > > order is reversed and it is done in a deadlock-safe manner. Note that 
> > > fault() doesn't really fail, but requests a retry from user-space with 
> > > rescheduling to give the process holding the struct_mutex time to 
> > > release it.
> > 
> > It doesn't do the reschedule -- need_resched() will check if the current
> > task was marked to be scheduled away, furthermore yield based locking
> > sucks chunks.

Imagine what would happen if your faulting task was the highest RT prio
task in the system, you'd end up with a life-lock.

> > What's so very difficult about pulling the copy_*_user() out from under
> > the locks?
> 
> That we're expecting the data movement to occur while holding device
> state in place.  For example, we write data through the GTT most of the
> time so we:
> 
> lock struct_mutex
> pin the object to the GTT
> flushing caches as needed
> copy_from_user
> unpin object
> unlock struct_mutex

So you cannot drop the lock once you've pinned the dst object?

> If I'm to pull the copy_from_user out, that means I have to:
> 
> alloc temporary storage
> for each block of temp storage size:
> 	copy_from_user
> 	lock struct_mutex
> 	pin the object to the GTT
> 	flush caches as needed
> 	memcpy
> 	unpin object
> 	unlock struct_mutex
> 
> At this point of introducing our third copy of the user's data in our
> hottest path, we should probably ditch the pwrite path entirely and go
> to user mapping of the objects for performance.  Requiring user mapping
> (which has significant overhead) cuts the likelihood of moving from
> user-space object caching to kernel object caching in the future, which
> has the potential of saving steaming piles of memory.

Or you could get_user_pages() to fault the user pages and pin them, and
then do pagefault_disable() and use copy_from_user_inatomic or such, and
release the pages again.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/