linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: use might_lock_nested in get

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon,  4 Nov 2019 18:37:20 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:     Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: use might_lock_nested in get_pages annotation

So strictly speaking the existing annotation is also ok, because we
have a chain of

obj->mm.lock#I915_MM_GET_PAGES -> fs_reclaim -> obj->mm.lock

(the shrinker cannot get at an object while we're in get_pages, hence
this is safe). But it's confusing, so try to take the right subclass
of the lock.

This does a bit reduce our lockdep based checking, but then it's also
less fragile, in case we ever change the nesting around.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h | 36 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
index edaf7126a84d..e5750d506cc9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
@@ -271,10 +271,27 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 int ____i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
 int __i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
 
+enum i915_mm_subclass { /* lockdep subclass for obj->mm.lock/struct_mutex */
+	I915_MM_NORMAL = 0,
+	/*
+	 * Only used by struct_mutex, when called "recursively" from
+	 * direct-reclaim-esque. Safe because there is only every one
+	 * struct_mutex in the entire system.
+	 */
+	I915_MM_SHRINKER = 1,
+	/*
+	 * Used for obj->mm.lock when allocating pages. Safe because the object
+	 * isn't yet on any LRU, and therefore the shrinker can't deadlock on
+	 * it. As soon as the object has pages, obj->mm.lock nests within
+	 * fs_reclaim.
+	 */
+	I915_MM_GET_PAGES = 1,
+};
+
 static inline int __must_check
 i915_gem_object_pin_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 {
-	might_lock(&obj->mm.lock);
+	might_lock_nested(&obj->mm.lock, I915_MM_GET_PAGES);
 
 	if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&obj->mm.pages_pin_count))
 		return 0;
@@ -317,23 +334,6 @@ i915_gem_object_unpin_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 	__i915_gem_object_unpin_pages(obj);
 }
 
-enum i915_mm_subclass { /* lockdep subclass for obj->mm.lock/struct_mutex */
-	I915_MM_NORMAL = 0,
-	/*
-	 * Only used by struct_mutex, when called "recursively" from
-	 * direct-reclaim-esque. Safe because there is only every one
-	 * struct_mutex in the entire system.
-	 */
-	I915_MM_SHRINKER = 1,
-	/*
-	 * Used for obj->mm.lock when allocating pages. Safe because the object
-	 * isn't yet on any LRU, and therefore the shrinker can't deadlock on
-	 * it. As soon as the object has pages, obj->mm.lock nests within
-	 * fs_reclaim.
-	 */
-	I915_MM_GET_PAGES = 1,
-};
-
 int __i915_gem_object_put_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
 void i915_gem_object_truncate(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
 void i915_gem_object_writeback(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
-- 
2.24.0.rc2