[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46d1944e-fbbe-075f-1c5b-356b5ce73ee0@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:06:11 +0000
From: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
To: Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/panfrost: fix reference leak in
panfrost_job_hw_submit
On 27/11/2020 09:44, Qinglang Miao wrote:
> pm_runtime_get_sync will increment pm usage counter even it
> failed. Forgetting to putting operation will result in a
> reference leak here.
>
> A new function pm_runtime_resume_and_get is introduced in
> [0] to keep usage counter balanced. So We fix the reference
> leak by replacing it with new funtion.
>
> [0] dd8088d5a896 ("PM: runtime: Add pm_runtime_resume_and_get to deal with usage counter")
>
> Fixes: f3ba91228e8e ("drm/panfrost: Add initial panfrost driver")
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> index 30e7b7196..04cf3bb67 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static void panfrost_job_hw_submit(struct panfrost_job *job, int js)
>
> panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(&pfdev->pfdevfreq);
>
> - ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pfdev->dev);
> + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(pfdev->dev);
Sorry, but in this case this change isn't correct.
panfrost_job_hw_submit() is expected to be unbalanced (the PM reference
count is expected to be incremented on return).
In the case where pm_runtime_get_sync() fails, the job will eventually
timeout, and there's a corresponding pm_runtime_put_noidle() in
panfrost_reset().
Potentially this could be handled better (e.g. without waiting for the
timeout to occur), but equally this isn't something we expect to happen
in normal operation).
Steve
> if (ret < 0)
> return;
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists