drm/radeon: fixup locking inversion between, mmap_sem and reservations
op 08-10-13 18:58, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 10/08/2013 06:47 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 06:29:35PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>> On 10/08/2013 04:55 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:45:18PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >>>>> Am 08.10.2013 16:33, schrieb Jerome Glisse: >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:14:40PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>> Allocate and copy all kernel memory before doing reservations. This prevents a locking >>>>>>> inversion between mmap_sem and reservation_class, and allows us to drop the trylocking >>>>>>> in ttm_bo_vm_fault without upsetting lockdep. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> >>>>>> I would say NAK. Current code only allocate temporary page in AGP case. >>>>>> So AGP case is userspace -> temp page -> cs checker -> radeon ib. >>>>>> >>>>>> Non AGP is directly memcpy to radeon IB. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your patch allocate memory memcpy userspace to it and it will then be >>>>>> memcpy to IB. Which means you introduce an extra memcpy in the process >>>>>> not something we want. >>>>> Totally agree. Additional to that there is no good reason to provide >>>>> anything else than anonymous system memory to the CS ioctl, so the >>>>> dependency between the mmap_sem and reservations are not really >>>>> clear to me. >>>>> >>>>> Christian. >>>> I think is that in other code path you take mmap_sem first then reserve >>>> bo. But here we reserve bo and then we take mmap_sem because of copy >>> >from user. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jerome >>>> >>> Actually the log message is a little confusing. I think the mmap_sem >>> locking inversion problem is orthogonal to what's being fixed here. > >>> This patch fixes the possible recursive bo::reserve caused by > >>> malicious user-space handing a pointer to ttm memory so that the ttm > >>> fault handler is called when bos are already reserved. That may > >>> cause a (possibly interruptible) livelock. >>> Once that is fixed, we are free to choose the mmap_sem -> >>> bo::reserve locking order. Currently it's bo::reserve->mmap_sem(), >>> but the hack required in the ttm fault handler is admittedly a bit >>> ugly. The plan is to change the locking order to >>> mmap_sem->bo::reserve > >>> I'm not sure if it applies to this particular case, but it should be > >>> possible to make sure that copy_from_user_inatomic() will always > >>> succeed, by making sure the pages are present using > >>> get_user_pages(), and release the pages after > >>> copy_from_user_inatomic() is done. That way there's no need for a > >>> double memcpy slowpath, but if the copied data is very fragmented I > >>> guess the resulting code may look ugly. The get_user_pages() > >>> function will return an error if it hits TTM pages. >>> /Thomas >> get_user_pages + copy_from_user_inatomic is overkill. We should just >> do get_user_pages which fails with ttm memory and then use copy_highpage >> helper. >> >> Cheers, >> Jerome > Yeah, it may well be that that's the preferred solution. > > /Thomas > I still disagree, and shuffled radeon_ib_get around to be called sooner. How does the patch below look? 8<------- Allocate and copy all kernel memory before doing reservations. This prevents a locking inversion between mmap_sem and reservation_class, and allows us to drop the trylocking in ttm_bo_vm_fault without upsetting lockdep. Changes since v1: - Kill extra memcpy for !AGP case. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> Reviewed-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment