linux-kernel - [PATCH v11 09/10] nouveau/svm: Refactor nouveau_range

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]

Message-ID: <20210616105937.23201-10-apopple@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:59:36 +1000
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To:     <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        <willy@...radead.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <hughd@...gle.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <hch@...radead.org>, <peterx@...hat.com>, <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        <bskeggs@...hat.com>, <jgg@...dia.com>, <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Subject: [PATCH v11 09/10] nouveau/svm: Refactor nouveau_range_fault

Call mmu_interval_notifier_insert() as part of nouveau_range_fault().
This doesn't introduce any functional change but makes it easier for a
subsequent patch to alter the behaviour of nouveau_range_fault() to
support GPU atomic operations.

Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Reviewed-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>

---

v9:

* Added Ben's Reviewed-By (thanks!)
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c
index 94f841026c3b..a195e48c9aee 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c
@@ -567,18 +567,27 @@ static int nouveau_range_fault(struct nouveau_svmm *svmm,
 	unsigned long hmm_pfns[1];
 	struct hmm_range range = {
 		.notifier = &notifier->notifier,
-		.start = notifier->notifier.interval_tree.start,
-		.end = notifier->notifier.interval_tree.last + 1,
 		.default_flags = hmm_flags,
 		.hmm_pfns = hmm_pfns,
 		.dev_private_owner = drm->dev,
 	};
-	struct mm_struct *mm = notifier->notifier.mm;
+	struct mm_struct *mm = svmm->notifier.mm;
 	int ret;
 
+	ret = mmu_interval_notifier_insert(&notifier->notifier, mm,
+					args->p.addr, args->p.size,
+					&nouveau_svm_mni_ops);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	range.start = notifier->notifier.interval_tree.start;
+	range.end = notifier->notifier.interval_tree.last + 1;
+
 	while (true) {
-		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout))
-			return -EBUSY;
+		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
+			ret = -EBUSY;
+			goto out;
+		}
 
 		range.notifier_seq = mmu_interval_read_begin(range.notifier);
 		mmap_read_lock(mm);
@@ -587,7 +596,7 @@ static int nouveau_range_fault(struct nouveau_svmm *svmm,
 		if (ret) {
 			if (ret == -EBUSY)
 				continue;
-			return ret;
+			goto out;
 		}
 
 		mutex_lock(&svmm->mutex);
@@ -606,6 +615,9 @@ static int nouveau_range_fault(struct nouveau_svmm *svmm,
 	svmm->vmm->vmm.object.client->super = false;
 	mutex_unlock(&svmm->mutex);
 
+out:
+	mmu_interval_notifier_remove(&notifier->notifier);
+
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -727,14 +739,8 @@ nouveau_svm_fault(struct nvif_notify *notify)
 		}
 
 		notifier.svmm = svmm;
-		ret = mmu_interval_notifier_insert(&notifier.notifier, mm,
-						   args.i.p.addr, args.i.p.size,
-						   &nouveau_svm_mni_ops);
-		if (!ret) {
-			ret = nouveau_range_fault(svmm, svm->drm, &args.i,
-				sizeof(args), hmm_flags, &notifier);
-			mmu_interval_notifier_remove(&notifier.notifier);
-		}
+		ret = nouveau_range_fault(svmm, svm->drm, &args.i,
+					sizeof(args), hmm_flags, &notifier);
 		mmput(mm);
 
 		limit = args.i.p.addr + args.i.p.size;
-- 
2.20.1