linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 09/30] drm/shmem-helper: Add and use lockless drm_gem_shmem_get

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]

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:18:27 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>, David Airlie
 <airlied@...il.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>, Gurchetan Singh
 <gurchetansingh@...omium.org>, Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@...il.com>, 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 09/30] drm/shmem-helper: Add and use lockless
 drm_gem_shmem_get_pages()

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:24:04 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:46:03PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > Add lockless drm_gem_shmem_get_pages() helper that skips taking reservation
> > lock if pages_use_count is non-zero, leveraging from atomicity of the
> > refcount_t. Make drm_gem_shmem_mmap() to utilize the new helper.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
> > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > index cacf0f8c42e2..1c032513abf1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > @@ -226,6 +226,20 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked);
> >  
> > +static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;  
> 
> Just random drive-by comment: a might_lock annotation here might be good,
> or people could hit some really interesting bugs that are rather hard to
> reproduce ...

Actually, being able to acquire a ref in a dma-signalling path on an
object we know for sure already has refcount >= 1 (because we previously
acquired a ref in a path where dma_resv_lock() was allowed), was the
primary reason I suggested moving to this atomic-refcount approach.

In the meantime, drm_gpuvm has evolved in a way that allows me to not
take the ref in the dma-signalling path (the gpuvm_bo object now holds
the ref, and it's acquired/released outside the dma-signalling path).

Not saying we shouldn't add this might_lock(), but others might have
good reasons to have this function called in a path where locking
is not allowed.