[PATCH v2 4/4] drm/panthor: Fix an off-by-one in the heap context retrieval logic

[Boris Brezillon]

On Thu, 2 May 2024 15:26:55 +0100
Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com> wrote:

> On 02/05/2024 15:15, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 May 2024 15:03:51 +0100
> > Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 30/04/2024 12:28, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >>> ID 0 is reserved to encode 'no-tiler-heap', the heap ID range is
> >>> [1:MAX_HEAPS_PER_POOL], which we occasionally need to turn into an index
> >>> in the [0:MAX_HEAPS_PER_POOL-1] when we want to access the context object.    
> >>
> >> This might be a silly question, but do we need ID 0 to be
> >> "no-tiler-heap"? Would it be easier to e.g. use a negative number for
> >> that situation and avoid all the off-by-one problems?
> >>
> >> I'm struggling to find the code which needs the 0 value to be special -
> >> where is it exactly that we encode this "no-tiler-heap" value?  
> > 
> > Hm, I thought we were passing the heap handle to the group creation
> > ioctl, but heap queue/heap association is actually done through a CS
> > instruction, so I guess you have a point. The only thing that makes a
> > bit hesitant is that handle=0 is reserved for all other kind of handles
> > we return, and I think I'd prefer to keep it the same for heap handles.
> > 
> > This being said, we could do the `+- 1` in
> > panthor_ioctl_tiler_heap_{create,destroy}() to keep things simple in
> > panthor_heap.c.  
> 
> The heap handles returned to user space have the upper 16 bits encoding
> the VM ID - so hopefully no one is doing anything crazy and splitting it
> up to treat the lower part specially. And (unless I'm mistaken) the VM
> IDs start from 1 so we'd still not have IDs of 0. So I don't think we
> need the +- 1 part anywhere for tiler heaps.

Ah, I forgot about that too. Guess we're all good with a
[0,MAX_HEAPS_PER_POOL-1] range then.

> 
> I'd certainly consider it a user space bug to treat the handles as
> anything other than opaque. Really user space shouldn't be treating 0 as
> special either: the uAPI doesn't say it's not valid. But I'd be open to
> updating the uAPI to say 0 is invalid if there's some desire for that.

Will do that in v3 then.

Thanks!

Boris