[PATCH v2 4/8] drm/msm/dpu: Disallow unallocated resources to be returned

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 10:24, Marijn Suijten
<marijn.suijten at somainline.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-09 01:30:29, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 09/01/2023 01:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On 22/12/2022 01:19, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > >> In the event that the topology requests resources that have not been
> > >> created by the system (because they are typically not represented in
> > >> dpu_mdss_cfg ^1), the resource(s) in global_state (in this case DSC
> > >> blocks) remain NULL but will still be returned out of
> > >> dpu_rm_get_assigned_resources, where the caller expects to get an array
> > >> containing num_blks valid pointers (but instead gets these NULLs).
> > >>
> > >> To prevent this from happening, where null-pointer dereferences
> > >> typically result in a hard-to-debug platform lockup, num_blks shouldn't
> > >> increase past NULL blocks and will print an error and break instead.
> > >> After all, max_blks represents the static size of the maximum number of
> > >> blocks whereas the actual amount varies per platform.
> > >>
> > >> ^1: which can happen after a git rebase ended up moving additions to
> > >> _dpu_cfg to a different struct which has the same patch context.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: bb00a452d6f7 ("drm/msm/dpu: Refactor resource manager")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten at somainline.org>
> > >> ---
> > >>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c | 5 +++++
> > >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > I think the patch is not fully correct. Please check resource
> > > availability during allocation. I wouldn't expect an error from
> > > get_assigned_resources because of resource exhaustion.
>
> Theoretically patch 5/8 should take care of this, and we should never
> reach this failure condition.  Emphasis on /should/, this may happen
> again if/when another block type is added with sub-par resource
> allocation and assignment implementation.

Yeah. Maybe swapping 4/8 and 5/8 makes sense.

>
> > Another option, since allocation functions (except DSC) already have
> > these safety checks: check error message to mention internal
> > inconstency: allocated resource doesn't exist.
>
> Is this a suggestion for the wording of the error message?

Yes. Because the current message makes one think that it is output
during allocation / assignment to encoder, while this is a safety net.

>
> - Marijn




--
With best wishes
Dmitry