[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execbuf: don't allow zero batch_len

[Matthew Auld]

On 13/10/2020 12:58, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Auld (2020-10-13 12:18:39)
>> As per the ABI batch_len is u32, however if the batch_len is left unset,
>> then the kernel will just assume batch_len is the size of the whole
>> batch object, however since the vma->size is u64, while the batch_len is
>> just u32 we can end up with batch_len = 0 if we are given too large batch
>> object(e.g 1ULL << 32), which doesn't look the intended behaviour and
>> probably leads to explosions on some HW.
>>
>> Testcase: igt/gem_exec_params/larger-than-life-batch
>> Fixes: 0b5372727be3 ("drm/i915/cmdparser: Use cached vmappings")
> 
> Nah. That's setting exec_len used for dispatch, not for parsing, which
> is still using
> 
> i915_gem_execbuffer_parse(engine, &shadow_exec_entry,
> 			  params->batch->obj,
> 			  eb,
> 			  args->batch_start_offset,
> 			  args->batch_len,
> 			  drm_is_current_master(file));
> (and args->batch_len is straight from userspace and passed onwards)
> 
> It's right up until 435e8fc059db ("drm/i915: Allow parsing of unsized batches")
> where we are using the user value of batch_len for allocating the shadow
> object and parsing.
> 
> Fixes: 435e8fc059db ("drm/i915: Allow parsing of unsized batches")

On the topic of that patch, why is it looking at args->batch_len(might 
be zero), even though it looks like it is trying to move the 
eb->batch_len calculation to before we call eb_use_cmdparser(), so it 
can use it(the commit message seems to suggest that?), but then it only 
looks at the args version anyway. I don't get it.


> 
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 ++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>> index 4b09bcd70cf4..80c738c72e6e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>> @@ -869,8 +869,13 @@ static int eb_lookup_vmas(struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>          }
>>   
>> -       if (eb->batch_len == 0)
>> +       if (eb->batch_len == 0) {
>>                  eb->batch_len = eb->batch->vma->size - eb->batch_start_offset;
> 
> if (overflows_type(eb->batch->vma->size - eb->batch_start_offset, eb->batch_len))
> 
> It should not have caused the cmdparser any trouble though, it should
> have been quite happy to copy nothing and reject the batch for reaching
> the end too early (with a very slim chance of a stale
> MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END to the rescue).
> 
> intel_gt_get_buffer_pool() looks suspect given a size of 0, it will
> either give the largest object it has cached or break upon
> creating/allocating internal pages.
> 
> In terms of HW fail, only gen2 used the parameter and it has a very
> limited batch/GTT size.
> -Chris
>