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 10:12:23 -0400
From:   Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@....com>
To:     Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.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.



On 06/12/2017 07:08 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> 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.
DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY flag is checked later, after this, so if this 
fails , test only will return EINVAL also.
> 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.
Sending 0 events is no problem at all on it's own but if user provides 
DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_EVENT in args
then when it becomes a problem , doesn't it mean he expects to receive 
at least one event ?

Thanks.