[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Protect debugfs per_file_stats with RCU lock

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:21:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> If we make sure we grab a strong reference to each object as we dump it,
> we can reduce the locks outside of our iterators to an rcu_read_lock.
> 
> This should prevent errors like:
> [ 2138.371911] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915]
> [ 2138.371924] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888223651000 by task cat/8293
> 
> [ 2138.371947] CPU: 0 PID: 8293 Comm: cat Not tainted 5.3.0-rc6-CI-Custom_4352+ #1
> [ 2138.371953] Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./J4205-ITX, BIOS P1.40 07/14/2017
> [ 2138.371959] Call Trace:
> [ 2138.371974]  dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb
> [ 2138.372099]  ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915]
> [ 2138.372108]  print_address_description+0x73/0x3a0
> [ 2138.372231]  ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915]
> [ 2138.372352]  ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915]
> [ 2138.372362]  __kasan_report+0x14e/0x192
> [ 2138.372489]  ? per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915]
> [ 2138.372502]  kasan_report+0xe/0x20
> [ 2138.372625]  per_file_stats+0x43/0x380 [i915]
> [ 2138.372751]  ? i915_panel_show+0x110/0x110 [i915]
> [ 2138.372761]  idr_for_each+0xa7/0x160
> [ 2138.372773]  ? idr_get_next_ul+0x110/0x110
> [ 2138.372782]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x10a/0x1d0
> [ 2138.372923]  print_context_stats+0x264/0x510 [i915]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Tested-by: David Weinehall <david.weinehall at linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 9798f27a697a..708855e051b5 100644
[ ... ]
>  		}
> @@ -328,9 +334,9 @@ static void print_context_stats(struct seq_file *m,
>  			struct task_struct *task;
>  			char name[80];
>  
> -			spin_lock(&file->table_lock);
> +			rcu_read_lock();
>  			idr_for_each(&file->object_idr, per_file_stats, &stats);
> -			spin_unlock(&file->table_lock);
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
>  
For my education - is it indeed possible and valid to replace spin_lock()
with rcu_read_lock() to prevent list manipulation for a list used by
idr_for_each(), even if that list is otherwise manipulated under the
spinlock ?

Background: we are seeing a crash with the following call trace.

[ 1016.651593] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
...
[ 1016.651693] Call Trace:
[ 1016.651703]  idr_for_each+0x8a/0xe8
[ 1016.651711]  i915_gem_object_info+0x2a3/0x3eb
[ 1016.651720]  seq_read+0x162/0x3ca
[ 1016.651727]  full_proxy_read+0x5b/0x8d
[ 1016.651733]  __vfs_read+0x45/0x1bb
[ 1016.651741]  vfs_read+0xc9/0x15e
[ 1016.651746]  ksys_read+0x7e/0xde
[ 1016.651752]  do_syscall_64+0x54/0x68
[ 1016.651758]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9

I have not tried to track down what exactly is NULL in this case.
Before spending more time on it, I'd like to understand the above
change a little better.

Thanks,
Guenter