[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/8] drm/i915/gt: Fix memory leaks in per-gt sysfs

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 12/05/2022 00:15, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 03:41:57 -0700, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 10.05.2022 11:48, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2022 10:39, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>> On 10.05.2022 10:18, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was there closure/agreement on the matter of whether or not there is
>>>>>>> a potential race between "kfree(gt)" and sysfs access (last put from
>>>>>>> sysfs that is)? I've noticed Andrzej and Ashutosh were discussing it
>>>>>>> but did not read all the details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really :)
>>>>>> IMO docs are against this practice, Ashutosh shows examples of this
>>>>>> practice in code and according to his analysis it is safe.
>>>>>> I gave up looking for contradictions :) Either it is OK, kobject is
>>>>>> not fully shared object, docs are obsolete and needs update, either
>>>>>> the patch is wrong.
>>>>>> Anyway finally I tend to accept this solution, I failed to prove it is
>>>>>> wrong :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Like a question of whether hotunplug can be triggered while userspace
>>>>> is sitting in a sysfs hook? Final kfree then has to be delayed until
>>>>> userspace exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw where is the "kfree(gt)" for the tiles on the PCI remove path? I
>>>>> can't find it.. Do we have a leak?
>>>>
>>>> intel_gt_tile_cleanup ?
>>>
>>> Called from intel_gt_release_all, whose only caller is the failure path
>>> of i915_driver_probe. Feels like something is missing?
>>
>> This is final proof this patch is safe - no kfree, no UAF :)
>>
>> Apparently it is broken in internal branch as well.
>> Should I take care of it?
> 
> See Daniele's comment here:
> 
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/478856/?series=101551&rev=1

Yeah we found that same leak yesterday, or the day before in this thread.

> We clean up the gt sysfs during PCI device remove (i915_driver_remove ->
> i915_driver_unregister -> intel_gt_driver_unregister ->
> intel_gt_sysfs_unregister (added in this patch)). But from Daniele's mail
> it appears that "kfree(gt)" can only be done from i915_driver_release().
> 
> So as long as i915_driver_release() always happens after
> i915_driver_remove() (which seems to be the case though I couldn't figure
> out why (i.e. who is putting the final reference of the drm device)) there
> is no UAF and no race. Thanks!

No worried by the unknown? I had a quick look whether core_hotunplug 
tests for sysfs interactions but couldn't spot it. What I had in mind is 
userspace stuck in a sysfs hook (say read into a userfaultfd buffer) 
with device hotunplug in parallel. Maybe it is all handled already, not 
claiming that it isn't.

Regards,

Tvrtko