linux-kernel - [46/55] drm/i915: Prevent racy removal of request from client list

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]

Message-Id: <20110325234843.819686600@clark.kroah.org>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:47:39 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: [46/55] drm/i915: Prevent racy removal of request from client list

2.6.37-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>

commit 09bfa51773c1e90f13000dc2fc0c4b84047009bc upstream.

When i915_gem_retire_requests_ring calls i915_gem_request_remove_from_client,
the client_list for that request may already be removed in i915_gem_release.
So we may call twice list_del(&request->client_list), resulting in an
oops like this report:

[126167.230394] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00100104
[126167.230699] IP: [<f8c2ce44>] i915_gem_retire_requests_ring+0xd4/0x240 [i915]
[126167.231042] *pdpt = 00000000314c1001 *pde = 0000000000000000
[126167.231314] Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP
[126167.231471] last sysfs file: /sys/devices/LNXSYSTM:00/device:00/PNP0C0A:00/power_supply/BAT1/current_now
[126167.231901] Modules linked in: snd_seq_dummy nls_utf8 isofs btrfs zlib_deflate libcrc32c ufs qnx4 hfsplus hfs minix ntfs vfat msdos fat jfs xfs exportfs reiserfs cryptd aes_i586 aes_generic binfmt_misc vboxnetadp vboxnetflt vboxdrv parport_pc ppdev snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_conexant snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep arc4 snd_pcm snd_seq_midi snd_rawmidi snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq uvcvideo videodev snd_timer snd_seq_device joydev iwlagn iwlcore mac80211 snd cfg80211 soundcore i915 drm_kms_helper snd_page_alloc psmouse drm serio_raw i2c_algo_bit video lp parport usbhid hid sky2 sdhci_pci ahci sdhci libahci
[126167.232018]
[126167.232018] Pid: 1101, comm: Xorg Not tainted 2.6.38-6-generic-pae #34-Ubuntu Gateway                          MC7833U /
[126167.232018] EIP: 0060:[<f8c2ce44>] EFLAGS: 00213246 CPU: 0
[126167.232018] EIP is at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring+0xd4/0x240 [i915]
[126167.232018] EAX: 00200200 EBX: f1ac25b0 ECX: 00000040 EDX: 00100100
[126167.232018] ESI: f1a2801c EDI: e87fc060 EBP: ef4d7dd8 ESP: ef4d7db0
[126167.232018]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 00e0 SS: 0068
[126167.232018] Process Xorg (pid: 1101, ti=ef4d6000 task=f1ba6500 task.ti=ef4d6000)
[126167.232018] Stack:
[126167.232018]  f1a28000 f1a2809c f1a28094 0058bd97 f1aa2400 f1a2801c 0058bd7b 0058bd85
[126167.232018]  f1a2801c f1a28000 ef4d7e38 f8c2e995 ef4d7e30 ef4d7e60 c14d1ebc f6b3a040
[126167.232018]  f1522cc0 000000db 00000000 f1ba6500 ffffffa1 00000000 00000001 f1a29214
[126167.232018] Call Trace:

Unfortunately the call trace reported was cut, but looking at debug
symbols the crash is at __list_del, when probably list_del is called
twice on the same request->client_list, as the dereferenced value is
LIST_POISON1 + 4, and by looking more at the debug symbols before
list_del call it should have being called by
i915_gem_request_remove_from_client

And as I can see in the code, it seems we indeed have the possibility
to remove a request->client_list twice, which would cause the above,
because we do list_del(&request->client_list) on both
i915_gem_request_remove_from_client and i915_gem_release

As Chris Wilson pointed out, it's indeed the case:
"(...) I had thought that the actual insertion/deletion was serialised
under the struct mutex and the intention of the spinlock was to protect
the unlocked list traversal during throttling. However, I missed that
i915_gem_release() is also called without struct mutex and so we do need
the double check for i915_gem_request_remove_from_client()."

This change does the required check to avoid the duplicate remove of
request->client_list.

Bugzilla: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733780
Signed-off-by: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>

---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c |    6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -1748,8 +1748,10 @@ i915_gem_request_remove_from_client(stru
 		return;
 
 	spin_lock(&file_priv->mm.lock);
-	list_del(&request->client_list);
-	request->file_priv = NULL;
+	if (request->file_priv) {
+		list_del(&request->client_list);
+		request->file_priv = NULL;
+	}
 	spin_unlock(&file_priv->mm.lock);
 }
 


--
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/