linux-kernel - Re: drm/vkms: deadlock between dev->event

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: <2784f5e8-ebf4-a000-509e-415e14390e23@collabora.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:02:33 -0300
From:   Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Maira Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
        Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
        Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com>,
        Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@...il.com>,
        Haneen Mohammed <hamohammed.sa@...il.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        syzkaller@...glegroups.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Sanan Hasanov <Sanan.Hasanov@....edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
        David Heidelberg <david.heidelberg@...labora.com>,
        Vignesh Raman <vignesh.raman@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: drm/vkms: deadlock between dev->event_lock and timer



On 14/09/2023 05:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 03:33:41PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2023/09/14 6:08, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Maybe the VKMS people need to understand locking in the first place. The
>>> first thing I saw in this code is:
>>>
>>> static enum hrtimer_restart vkms_vblank_simulate(struct hrtimer *timer)
>>> {
>>>     ...
>>>     mutex_unlock(&output->enabled_lock);
>>>
>>> What?
>>>
>>> Unlocking a mutex in the context of a hrtimer callback is simply
>>> violating all mutex locking rules.
>>>
>>> How has this code ever survived lock debugging without triggering a big
>>> fat warning?
>>
>> Commit a0e6a017ab56936c ("drm/vkms: Fix race-condition between the hrtimer
>> and the atomic commit") in 6.6-rc1 replaced spinlock with mutex. So we haven't
>> tested with the lock debugging yet...
> 
> Yeah that needs an immediate revert, there's not much that looks legit in
> that patch. I'll chat with Maira.
> 
> Also yes how that landed without anyone running lockdep is ... not good. I
> guess we need a lockdep enabled drm ci target that runs vkms tests asap
> :-)

btw, I just executed a draft version of vkms targed on the ci, we do get 
the warning:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/helen.fornazier/linux/-/jobs/49156305#L623

I'm just not sure if tests would fail (since it is a warning) and it has 
a chance to be ignored if people don't look at the logs (unless if igt 
already handles that).

I still need to do some adjustments (it seems the tests is hanging 
somewhere and we got a timeout) but we should have vkms in drm ci soon.

Regards,
Helen


> 
>> Maíra and Arthur, mutex_unlock() from interrupt context is not permitted.
>> Please revert that patch immediately.
>> I guess that a semaphore (down()/up()) could be used instead of a mutex.
> 
>  From a quick look this smells like a classic "try to use locking when you
> want synchronization primitives", so semaphore here doesn't look any
> better. The vkms_set_composer() function was originally for crc
> generation, where it's userspace's job to make sure they wait for all the
> crc they need to be generated before they shut it down again. But for
> writeback the kernel must guarantee that the compositiona actually
> happens, and the current function just doesn't make any such guarantees.
> 
> Cheers, Daniel