[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230109171223.vjkigcj7xwfwow2a@SoMainline.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 18:12:23 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@...ainline.org>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
sunliming <sunliming@...inos.cn>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Haowen Bai <baihaowen@...zu.com>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
Vinod Polimera <quic_vpolimer@...cinc.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Drew Davenport <ddavenport@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] drm/msm/dpu: Disallow unallocated resources to be
returned
On 2023-01-09 11:06:45, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 10:24, Marijn Suijten
> <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-01-09 01:30:29, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On 09/01/2023 01:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On 22/12/2022 01:19, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > >> In the event that the topology requests resources that have not been
> > > >> created by the system (because they are typically not represented in
> > > >> dpu_mdss_cfg ^1), the resource(s) in global_state (in this case DSC
> > > >> blocks) remain NULL but will still be returned out of
> > > >> dpu_rm_get_assigned_resources, where the caller expects to get an array
> > > >> containing num_blks valid pointers (but instead gets these NULLs).
> > > >>
> > > >> To prevent this from happening, where null-pointer dereferences
> > > >> typically result in a hard-to-debug platform lockup, num_blks shouldn't
> > > >> increase past NULL blocks and will print an error and break instead.
> > > >> After all, max_blks represents the static size of the maximum number of
> > > >> blocks whereas the actual amount varies per platform.
> > > >>
> > > >> ^1: which can happen after a git rebase ended up moving additions to
> > > >> _dpu_cfg to a different struct which has the same patch context.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fixes: bb00a452d6f7 ("drm/msm/dpu: Refactor resource manager")
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c | 5 +++++
> > > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > I think the patch is not fully correct. Please check resource
> > > > availability during allocation. I wouldn't expect an error from
> > > > get_assigned_resources because of resource exhaustion.
> >
> > Theoretically patch 5/8 should take care of this, and we should never
> > reach this failure condition. Emphasis on /should/, this may happen
> > again if/when another block type is added with sub-par resource
> > allocation and assignment implementation.
>
> Yeah. Maybe swapping 4/8 and 5/8 makes sense.
Ack.
> > > Another option, since allocation functions (except DSC) already have
> > > these safety checks: check error message to mention internal
> > > inconstency: allocated resource doesn't exist.
> >
> > Is this a suggestion for the wording of the error message?
>
> Yes. Because the current message makes one think that it is output
> during allocation / assignment to encoder, while this is a safety net.
Good. So the patch is correct, just the wording is off, which I fully
agree on. This isn't allocating anything, just handing out what was
previously allocated (and is a safety net).
- Marijn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists