| Message ID | 20230817213729.110087-1-robdclark@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dma-buf/sw_sync: Avoid recursive lock during fence signal | expand |
Am 17.08.23 um 23:37 schrieb Rob Clark: > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org> > > If a signal callback releases the sw_sync fence, that will trigger a > deadlock as the timeline_fence_release recurses onto the fence->lock > (used both for signaling and the the timeline tree). > > To avoid that, temporarily hold an extra reference to the signalled > fences until after we drop the lock. > > (This is an alternative implementation of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11664717/ > which avoids some potential UAF issues with the original patch.) > > Reported-by: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> > Fixes: d3c6dd1fb30d ("dma-buf/sw_sync: Synchronize signal vs syncpt free") > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c > index 63f0aeb66db6..ceb6a0408624 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c > @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static const struct dma_fence_ops timeline_fence_ops = { > */ > static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) > { > + LIST_HEAD(signalled); > struct sync_pt *pt, *next; > > trace_sync_timeline(obj); > @@ -203,9 +204,13 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) > if (!timeline_fence_signaled(&pt->base)) > break; > > + dma_fence_get(&pt->base); Question is why don't have the fences a reference on the list in the first place? > + > list_del_init(&pt->link); > rb_erase(&pt->node, &obj->pt_tree); > > + list_add_tail(&pt->link, &signalled); Instead of list_del()/list_add_tail() you could also use list_move_tail() here. > + > /* > * A signal callback may release the last reference to this > * fence, causing it to be freed. That operation has to be > @@ -218,6 +223,11 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) > } > > spin_unlock_irq(&obj->lock); > + > + list_for_each_entry_safe(pt, next, &signalled, link) { > + list_del(&pt->link); You must use list_del_init() here or otherwise the pt->link will keep pointing to the prev/next entries and the list_empty() check in timeline_fence_release() will fail and potentially corrupt things. Regards, Christian. > + dma_fence_put(&pt->base); > + } > } > > /**
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 2:09 AM Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote: > > Am 17.08.23 um 23:37 schrieb Rob Clark: > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org> > > > > If a signal callback releases the sw_sync fence, that will trigger a > > deadlock as the timeline_fence_release recurses onto the fence->lock > > (used both for signaling and the the timeline tree). > > > > To avoid that, temporarily hold an extra reference to the signalled > > fences until after we drop the lock. > > > > (This is an alternative implementation of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11664717/ > > which avoids some potential UAF issues with the original patch.) > > > > Reported-by: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> > > Fixes: d3c6dd1fb30d ("dma-buf/sw_sync: Synchronize signal vs syncpt free") > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org> > > --- > > drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c > > index 63f0aeb66db6..ceb6a0408624 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c > > @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static const struct dma_fence_ops timeline_fence_ops = { > > */ > > static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) > > { > > + LIST_HEAD(signalled); > > struct sync_pt *pt, *next; > > > > trace_sync_timeline(obj); > > @@ -203,9 +204,13 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) > > if (!timeline_fence_signaled(&pt->base)) > > break; > > > > + dma_fence_get(&pt->base); > > Question is why don't have the fences a reference on the list in the > first place? As best I can tell, it is because the fences hold a reference to the timeline, so a reference in the other direction would cause a loop. BR, -R > > + > > list_del_init(&pt->link); > > rb_erase(&pt->node, &obj->pt_tree); > > > > + list_add_tail(&pt->link, &signalled); > > Instead of list_del()/list_add_tail() you could also use > list_move_tail() here. > > > + > > /* > > * A signal callback may release the last reference to this > > * fence, causing it to be freed. That operation has to be > > @@ -218,6 +223,11 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) > > } > > > > spin_unlock_irq(&obj->lock); > > + > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(pt, next, &signalled, link) { > > + list_del(&pt->link); > > You must use list_del_init() here or otherwise the pt->link will keep > pointing to the prev/next entries and the list_empty() check in > timeline_fence_release() will fail and potentially corrupt things. > > Regards, > Christian. > > > + dma_fence_put(&pt->base); > > + } > > } > > > > /** >
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c index 63f0aeb66db6..ceb6a0408624 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static const struct dma_fence_ops timeline_fence_ops = { */ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) { + LIST_HEAD(signalled); struct sync_pt *pt, *next; trace_sync_timeline(obj); @@ -203,9 +204,13 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) if (!timeline_fence_signaled(&pt->base)) break; + dma_fence_get(&pt->base); + list_del_init(&pt->link); rb_erase(&pt->node, &obj->pt_tree); + list_add_tail(&pt->link, &signalled); + /* * A signal callback may release the last reference to this * fence, causing it to be freed. That operation has to be @@ -218,6 +223,11 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc) } spin_unlock_irq(&obj->lock); + + list_for_each_entry_safe(pt, next, &signalled, link) { + list_del(&pt->link); + dma_fence_put(&pt->base); + } } /**