linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: mm always protect change to unused_nodes with unused

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1258389170.2303.33.camel@balrog.2hip.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:32:50 -0600
From:	Robert Noland <rnoland@...p.net>
To:	Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.sf.net" <dri-devel@...ts.sf.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: mm always protect change to unused_nodes with
 unused_lock spinlock

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:23 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
> >> Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
> >> this patch.
> >>
> >>  Process 1: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
> >>             2-spin_lock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
> >>             3-drm_mm_put_block(this function might modify unused_nodes
> >>               list but doesn't protect modification with unused_lock)
> >>             4-spin_unlock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
> >>  Process2:  1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
> >> At this point Process1 & Process2 might both be doing modification to
> >> unused_nodes list. This patch add unused_lock protection into
> >> drm_mm_put_block to avoid such issue.
> >>     
> >
> > Have we got a bug number or reproducer for this?
> >
> > I've cc'ed Thomas and Chris who were last ppl to touch drm_mm.c for some
> > sort of acks.
> >
> > Dave.
> >
> >   
> >> Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c |    9 +++++++++
> >>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c
> >> index c861d80..97dc5a4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c
> >> @@ -103,6 +103,11 @@ static struct drm_mm_node *drm_mm_kmalloc(struct drm_mm *mm, int atomic)
> >>        return child;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +/* drm_mm_pre_get() - pre allocate drm_mm_node structure
> >> + * drm_mm:     memory manager struct we are pre-allocating for
> >> + *
> >> + * Returns 0 on success or -ENOMEM if allocation fails.
> >> + */
> >>  int drm_mm_pre_get(struct drm_mm *mm)
> >>  {
> >>        struct drm_mm_node *node;
> >> @@ -253,12 +258,14 @@ void drm_mm_put_block(struct drm_mm_node *cur)
> >>                                prev_node->size += next_node->size;
> >>                                list_del(&next_node->ml_entry);
> >>                                list_del(&next_node->fl_entry);
> >> +                               spin_lock(&mm->unused_lock);
> >>                                if (mm->num_unused < MM_UNUSED_TARGET) {
> >>                                        list_add(&next_node->fl_entry,
> >>                                                 &mm->unused_nodes);
> >>                                        ++mm->num_unused;
> >>                                } else
> >>                                        kfree(next_node);
> >> +                               spin_unlock(&mm->unused_lock);
> >>                        } else {
> >>                                next_node->size += cur->size;
> >>                                next_node->start = cur->start;
> >> @@ -271,11 +278,13 @@ void drm_mm_put_block(struct drm_mm_node *cur)
> >>                list_add(&cur->fl_entry, &mm->fl_entry);
> >>        } else {
> >>                list_del(&cur->ml_entry);
> >> +               spin_lock(&mm->unused_lock);
> >>                if (mm->num_unused < MM_UNUSED_TARGET) {
> >>                        list_add(&cur->fl_entry, &mm->unused_nodes);
> >>                        ++mm->num_unused;
> >>                } else
> >>                        kfree(cur); 
> >> +               spin_unlock(&mm->unused_lock);
> >>        }
> >>  }
> >>
> >> --
> >> 1.6.5.2
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> Hmm. Ouch. The patch looks correct, although I'm not 100% sure it's OK 
> to kfree() within a spinlocked region? Perhaps better to take it out.

Would kfree() possibly sleep?  I wouldn't think so, if not it should be
safe.

robert.

> /Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Dri-devel mailing list
> Dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
-- 
Robert Noland <rnoland@...p.net>
2Hip Networks

--
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/