linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/core: Fail atomic IOCTL with no CRTC state but with signaling.

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:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:08:05 +0200
From:   Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@....com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, harry.wentland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/core: Fail atomic IOCTL with no CRTC state but with
 signaling.

Op 09-06-17 om 23:30 schreef Andrey Grodzovsky:
> Problem:
> While running IGT kms_atomic_transition test suite i encountered
> a hang in drmHandleEvent immidietly follwoing an atomic_commit.
> After dumping the atomic state I relized that in this case there was
> not even one CRTC attached to the state and only disabled
> planes. This probably due to a commit which hadn't changed any property
> which would require attaching crtc state. This means drmHandleEvent
> will never wake up from read since without CRTC in atomic state
> the event fd will not be singnaled.
> This point to a bug in IGT but also DRM should gracefully
> fail  such scenario so no hang on user side will happen.
>
> Fix:
> Explicitly fail by failing atomic_commit early in
> drm_mode_atomic_commit where such problem can be identified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Patch itself looks sane, but I'm worried about failing with -EINVAL when the same configuration with TEST_ONLY would otherwise succeed on it.
Not sure whether we should fail or not, since sending 0 events could still be considered success.

I don't mind either way, but definitely something that should be discussed before applying.