linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery

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:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:38:13 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:43:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:52:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Poking at lock internals is not cool. Since I'm going to change the
> > implementation this will break, take it out.
> 
> 
> So something like the below would serve as a replacement for your
> previous hacks. Is this API something acceptable to people?

Compile tested only.. Daniel reminded me in another thread.

---
Subject: locking/mutex,drm: Introduce mutex_trylock_recursive()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:43:51 +0200

By popular DRM demand, introduce mutex_trylock_recursive() to fix up the
two GEM users.

Without this it is very easy for these drivers to get stuck in
low-memory situations and trigger OOM. Work is in progress to remove the
need for this in at least i915.

Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c   | 16 ++++++++++++----
 include/linux/mutex.h                    | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 scripts/checkpatch.pl                    |  6 ++++++
 4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
index e9bd2a81d03a..5543d993a50e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
@@ -227,11 +227,20 @@ unsigned long i915_gem_shrink_all(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 
 static bool i915_gem_shrinker_lock(struct drm_device *dev, bool *unlock)
 {
-	if (!mutex_trylock(&dev->struct_mutex))
+	switch (mutex_trylock_recursive(&dev->struct_mutex)) {
+	case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_FAILED:
 		return false;
 
-	*unlock = true;
-	return true;
+	case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_SUCCESS:
+		*unlock = true;
+		return true;
+
+	case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_RECURSIVE:
+		*unlock = false;
+		return true;
+	}
+
+	BUG();
 }
 
 static unsigned long
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
index 6d2e885bd58e..62b8cc653823 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
@@ -20,13 +20,21 @@
 
 static bool msm_gem_shrinker_lock(struct drm_device *dev, bool *unlock)
 {
-	if (!mutex_trylock(&dev->struct_mutex))
+	switch (mutex_trylock_recursive(&dev->struct_mutex)) {
+	case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_FAILED:
 		return false;
 
-	*unlock = true;
-	return true;
-}
+	case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_SUCCESS:
+		*unlock = true;
+		return true;
 
+	case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_RECURSIVE:
+		*unlock = false;
+		return true;
+	}
+
+	BUG();
+}
 
 static unsigned long
 msm_gem_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker, struct shrink_control *sc)
diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
index 4d3bccabbea5..6a902f0a2148 100644
--- a/include/linux/mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
@@ -189,4 +189,35 @@ extern void mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock);
 
 extern int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock);
 
+/*
+ * These values are chosen such that FAIL and SUCCESS match the
+ * values of the regular mutex_trylock().
+ */
+enum mutex_trylock_recursive_enum {
+	MUTEX_TRYLOCK_FAILED    = 0,
+	MUTEX_TRYLOCK_SUCCESS   = 1,
+	MUTEX_TRYLOCK_RECURSIVE,
+};
+
+/**
+ * mutex_trylock_recursive - trylock variant that allows recursive locking
+ * @lock: mutex to be locked
+ *
+ * This function should not be used, _ever_. It is purely for hysterical GEM
+ * raisins, and once those are gone this will be removed.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ *  MUTEX_TRYLOCK_FAILED    - trylock failed,
+ *  MUTEX_TRYLOCK_SUCCESS   - lock acquired,
+ *  MUTEX_TRYLOCK_RECURSIVE - we already owned the lock.
+ */
+static inline __deprecated __must_check enum mutex_trylock_recursive_enum
+mutex_trylock_recursive(struct mutex *lock)
+{
+	if (unlikely(__mutex_owner(lock) == current))
+		return MUTEX_TRYLOCK_RECURSIVE;
+
+	return mutex_trylock(lock);
+}
+
 #endif /* __LINUX_MUTEX_H */
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index a8368d1c4348..23f462f64a3f 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -6076,6 +6076,12 @@ sub process {
 			}
 		}
 
+# check for mutex_trylock_recursive usage
+		if ($line =~ /mutex_trylock_recursive/) {
+			ERROR("LOCKING",
+			      "recursive locking is bad, do not use this ever.\n" . $herecurr);
+		}
+
 # check for lockdep_set_novalidate_class
 		if ($line =~ /^.\s*lockdep_set_novalidate_class\s*\(/ ||
 		    $line =~ /__lockdep_no_validate__\s*\)/ ) {