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

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 09/01/2023 19:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-01-09 11:06:45, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Ack.
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> Good.  So the patch is correct, just the wording is off, which I fully
> agree on.  This isn't allocating anything, just handing out what was
> previously allocated (and is a safety net).

Yes. Please excuse me if my original message was not 100% clear.

> 
> - Marijn

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry