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  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:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:17:48 -0700
From:   Chia-I Wu <>
To:     Gerd Hoffmann <>
Cc:     ML dri-devel <>,
        Gurchetan Singh <>,
        David Airlie <>,
        Daniel Vetter <>,
        "open list:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER" 
        open list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve}

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gerd Hoffmann <> wrote:
>   Hi,
> > > -       r = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->tbo, true, false, NULL);
> > > +       r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL);
> > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for
> > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl?  In that function, only
> > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and
> > ttm_bo_unreserve.  I am curious how they keep the BO alive.
> It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also
> can't be evicted then.  Havn't checked how ttm implements that.
Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section.
The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive.  Someone
needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO
can go away before the vbuf is retired.

I can be wrong, but on the other hand, it seems fine for a BO to go
away before the vbuf using it is retired.  When that happens, the
driver emits a RESOURCE_UNREF vbuf which is *after* the original vbuf.

> cheers,
>   Gerd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists