[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm: avoid races with modesetting rights

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:31 PM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
<desmondcheongzx at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/8/21 5:04 pm, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:53 AM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
> > <desmondcheongzx at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 16/8/21 2:47 am, kernel test robot wrote:
> >>> Hi Desmond,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
> >>>
> >>> [auto build test ERROR on next-20210813]
> >>> [also build test ERROR on v5.14-rc5]
> >>> [cannot apply to linus/master v5.14-rc5 v5.14-rc4 v5.14-rc3]
> >>> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> >>> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> >>> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
> >>>
> >>> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Desmond-Cheong-Zhi-Xi/drm-avoid-races-with-modesetting-rights/20210815-234145
> >>> base:    4b358aabb93a2c654cd1dcab1a25a589f6e2b153
> >>> config: i386-randconfig-a004-20210815 (attached as .config)
> >>> compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0
> >>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> >>>           # https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/cf6d8354b7d7953cd866fad004cbb189adfa074f
> >>>           git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
> >>>           git fetch --no-tags linux-review Desmond-Cheong-Zhi-Xi/drm-avoid-races-with-modesetting-rights/20210815-234145
> >>>           git checkout cf6d8354b7d7953cd866fad004cbb189adfa074f
> >>>           # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >>>           make W=1 ARCH=i386
> >>>
> >>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
> >>>
> >>>>> ERROR: modpost: "task_work_add" [drivers/gpu/drm/drm.ko] undefined!
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm a bit uncertain about this. Looking into the .config used, this
> >> error seems to happen because task_work_add isn't an exported symbol,
> >> but DRM is being compiled as a loadable kernel module (CONFIG_DRM=m).
> >>
> >> One way to deal with this is to export the symbol, but there was a
> >> proposed patch to do this a few months back that wasn't picked up [1],
> >> so I'm not sure what to make of this.
> >>
> >> I'll export the symbol as part of a v3 series, and check in with the
> >> task-work maintainers.
> >>
> >> Link:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210127150029.13766-3-joshi.k@samsung.com/ [1]
> >
> > Yeah that sounds best. I have two more thoughts on the patch:
> > - drm_master_flush isn't used by any modules outside of drm.ko, so we
> > can unexport it and drop the kerneldoc (the comment is still good).
> > These kind of internal functions have their declaration in
> > drm-internal.h - there's already a few there from drm_auth.c
> >
>
> Sounds good, I'll do that and move the declaration from drm_auth.h to
> drm_internal.h.
>
> > - We know have 3 locks for master state, that feels a bit like
> > overkill. The spinlock I think we need to keep due to lock inversions,
> > but the master_mutex and master_rwsem look like we should be able to
> > merge them? I.e. anywhere we currently grab the master_mutex we could
> > instead grab the rwsem in either write mode (when we change stuff) or
> > read mode (when we just check, like in master_internal_acquire).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > -Daniel
> >
>
> Using rwsem in the places where we currently hold the mutex seems pretty
> doable.
>
> There are some tricky bits once we add rwsem read locks to the ioctl
> handler. Some ioctl functions like drm_authmagic need a write lock.

Ah yes, I only looked at the dropmaster/setmaster ioctl, and those
don't have the DRM_MASTER bit set.

> In this particular case, it might make sense to break master_mutex down
> into finer-grained locks, since the function doesn't change master
> permissions. It just needs to prevent concurrent writes to the
> drm_master.magic_map idr.

Yeah for authmagic we could perhaps just reuse the spinlock to protect
->magic_map?

> For other ioctls, I'll take a closer look on a case-by-case basis.

If it's too much shuffling then I think totally fine to leave things
as-is. Just feels a bit silly to have 3 locks, on of which is an
rwlock itself, for this fairly small amount of state.
-Daniel

>
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>> 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
> >>> https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch