linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix deadlock while reading mqd from debugfs

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: <c8efae98-3cf8-c21c-bfa4-d5998ab92a0e@amd.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:21:32 +0100
From: "Sharma, Shashank" <shashank.sharma@....com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
 Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
 amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix deadlock while reading mqd from debugfs


On 23/03/2024 15:52, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 01:09:57PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 12:32:33PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 07.03.24 um 23:07 schrieb Johannes Weiner:
>>>> Lastly I went with an open loop instead of a memcpy() as I wasn't
>>>> sure if that memory is safe to address a byte at at time.
>> Shashank pointed out to me in private that byte access would indeed be
>> safe. However, after actually trying it it won't work because memcpy()
>> doesn't play nice with mqd being volatile:
>>
>> /home/hannes/src/linux/linux/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ring.c: In function 'amdgpu_debugfs_mqd_read':
>> /home/hannes/src/linux/linux/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ring.c:550:22: warning: passing argument 1 of '__builtin_dynamic_object_size' discards 'volatil' qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
>>    550 |         memcpy(kbuf, mqd, ring->mqd_size);
>>
>> So I would propose leaving the patch as-is. Shashank, does that sound
>> good to you?
> Friendly ping :)
>
> Shashank, is your Reviewed-by still good for this patch, given the
> above?

Ah, sorry I missed this due to some parallel work, and just realized the 
memcpy/volatile limitation.

I also feel the need of protecting MQD read under a lock to avoid 
parallel change in MQD while we do byte-by-byte copy, but I will add 
that in my to-do list.

Please feel free to use my R-b.

- Shashank

> Thanks