[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090219125736.GC1747@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:57:36 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: krh@...planet.net, eric@...olt.net,
Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>, dri-devel@...ts.sf.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Take mmap_sem up front to avoid lock order violations.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:19:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 11:38 -0500, krh@...planet.net wrote:
> > From: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...hat.com>
> >
> > A number of GEM operations (and legacy drm ones) want to copy data to
> > or from userspace while holding the struct_mutex lock. However, the
> > fault handler calls us with the mmap_sem held and thus enforces the
> > opposite locking order. This patch downs the mmap_sem up front for
> > those operations that access userspace data under the struct_mutex
> > lock to ensure the locking order is consistent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Here's a different and simpler attempt to fix the locking order
> > problem. We can just down_read() the mmap_sem pre-emptively up-front,
> > and the locking order is respected. It's simpler than the
> > mutex_trylock() game, avoids introducing a new mutex.
The "simple" way to fix this is to just allocate a temporary buffer
to copy a snapshot of the data going to/from userspace. Then do the
real usercopy to/from that buffer outside the locks.
You don't have any performance critical bulk copies (ie. that will
blow the L1 cache), do you?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists