linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 15/30] drm/shmem-helper: Avoid lockdep warning when pages 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:02:49 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
 Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@...omium.org>, Chia-I Wu
 <olvaffe@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Maarten Lankhorst
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Christian König
 <christian.koenig@....com>, Qiang Yu <yuq825@...il.com>, Steven Price
 <steven.price@....com>, Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>, Melissa Wen
 <mwen@...lia.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
 virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 15/30] drm/shmem-helper: Avoid lockdep warning when
 pages are released

On Fri,  5 Jan 2024 21:46:09 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com> wrote:

> All drivers will be moved to get/put pages explicitly and then the last
> put_pages() will be invoked during gem_free() time by some drivers.
> We can't touch reservation lock when GEM is freed because that will cause
> a spurious warning from lockdep when shrinker support will be added.
> Lockdep doesn't know that fs_reclaim isn't functioning for a freed object,
> and thus, can't deadlock. Release pages directly without taking reservation
> lock if GEM is freed and its refcount is zero.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>

Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> index f5ed64f78648..c7357110ca76 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> @@ -242,6 +242,22 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
>  	if (refcount_dec_not_one(&shmem->pages_use_count))
>  		return;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Destroying the object is a special case because acquiring
> +	 * the obj lock can cause a locking order inversion between
> +	 * reservation_ww_class_mutex and fs_reclaim.
> +	 *
> +	 * This deadlock is not actually possible, because no one should
> +	 * be already holding the lock when GEM is released.  Unfortunately
> +	 * lockdep is not aware of this detail.  So when the refcount drops
> +	 * to zero, we pretend it is already locked.
> +	 */
> +	if (!kref_read(&shmem->base.refcount)) {
> +		if (refcount_dec_and_test(&shmem->pages_use_count))
> +			drm_gem_shmem_free_pages(shmem);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	dma_resv_lock(shmem->base.resv, NULL);
>  	drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(shmem);
>  	dma_resv_unlock(shmem->base.resv);