linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/qxl: add mutex_lock/mutex_unlock to ensure the order in which resources are released.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:43:00 +0200
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Caicai <caizhaopeng@...ontech.com>
Cc:     Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhangyueqian <zhangyueqian@...ontech.com>,
        Zhangshuang <zhangshuang@...ontech.com>,
        Zhangshiwen <zhangshiwen@...ontech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/qxl: add mutex_lock/mutex_unlock to ensure the
 order in which resources are released.

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 02:39:17PM +0800, Caicai wrote:
> When a qxl resource is released, the list that needs to be released is
> fetched from the linked list ring and cleared. When you empty the list,
> instead of trying to determine whether the ttm buffer object for each
> qxl in the list is locked, you release the qxl object and remove the
> element from the list until the list is empty. It was found that the
> linked list was cleared first, and that the lock on the corresponding
> ttm Bo for the QXL had not been released, so that the new qxl could not
> be locked when it used the TTM.

So the dma_resv_reserve_shared() call in qxl_release_validate_bo() is
unbalanced?  Because the dma_resv_unlock() call in
qxl_release_fence_buffer_objects() never happens due to
qxl_release_free_list() clearing the list beforehand?  Is that correct?

The only way I see for this to happen is that the guest is preempted
between qxl_push_{cursor,command}_ring_release() and
qxl_release_fence_buffer_objects() calls.  The host can complete the qxl
command then, signal the guest, and the IRQ handler calls
qxl_release_free_list() before qxl_release_fence_buffer_objects() runs.

Looking through the code I think it should be safe to simply swap the
qxl_release_fence_buffer_objects() +
qxl_push_{cursor,command}_ring_release() calls to close that race
window.  Can you try that and see if it fixes the bug for you?

>  		if (flush)
> -			flush_work(&qdev->gc_work);
> +			//can't flush work, it may lead to deadlock
> +			usleep_range(500, 1000);
> +

The commit message doesn't explain this chunk.

take care,
  Gerd