[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/active: Fix misuse of non-idle barriers as fence trackers

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Janusz,

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:12:18PM +0100, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> Users reported oopses on list corruptions when using i915 perf with a
> number of concurrently running graphics applications.  Root cause analysis
> pointed at an issue in barrier processing code -- a race among perf open /
> close replacing active barriers with perf requests on kernel context and
> concurrent barrier preallocate / acquire operations performed during user
> context first pin / last unpin.
> 
> When adding a request to a composite tracker, we try to reuse an existing
> fence tracker, already allocated and registered with that composite.  The
> tracker we obtain may already track another fence, may be an idle barrier,
> or an active barrier.
> 
> If the tracker we get occurs a non-idle barrier then we try to delete that
> barrier from a list of barrier tasks it belongs to.  However, while doing
> that we don't respect return value from a function that performs the
> barrier deletion.  Should the deletion ever failed, we would end up
> reusing the tracker still registered as a barrier task.  Since the same
> structure field is reused with both fence callback lists and barrier
> tasks list, list corruptions would likely occur.
> 
> Barriers are now deleted from a barrier tasks list by temporarily removing
> the list content, traversing that content with skip over the node to be
> deleted, then populating the list back with the modified content.  Should
> that intentionally racy concurrent deletion attempts be not serialized,
> one or more of those may fail because of the list being temporary empty.
> 
> Related code that ignores the results of barrier deletion was initially
> introduced in v5.4 by commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow sharing the
> idle-barrier from other kernel requests").  However, all users of the
> barrier deletion routine were apparently serialized at that time, then the
> issue didn't exhibit itself.  Results of git bisect with help of a newly
> developed igt at gem_barrier_race@remote-request IGT test indicate that list
> corruptions might start to appear after commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt:
> Schedule request retirement when timeline idles"), introduced in v5.5.
> 
> Respect results of barrier deletion attempts -- mark the barrier as idle
> only if successfully deleted from the list.  Then, before proceeding with
> setting our fence as the one currently tracked, make sure that the tracker
> we've got is not a non-idle barrier.  If that check fails then don't use
> that tracker but go back and try to acquire a new, usable one.
> 
> v2: no code changes,
>   - blame commit 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement
>     when timeline idles"), v5.5, not commit d8af05ff38ae ("drm/i915: Allow
>     sharing the idle-barrier from other kernel requests"), v5.4,
>   - reword commit description.

That's a very good explanation and very much needed for such a
catch. Thanks!

> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/6333
> Fixes: 311770173fac ("drm/i915/gt: Schedule request retirement when timeline idles")
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org # v5.5
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
> index 7412abf166a8c..f9282b8c87c1c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
> @@ -422,12 +422,12 @@ replace_barrier(struct i915_active *ref, struct i915_active_fence *active)
>  	 * we can use it to substitute for the pending idle-barrer
>  	 * request that we want to emit on the kernel_context.
>  	 */
> -	__active_del_barrier(ref, node_from_active(active));
> -	return true;
> +	return __active_del_barrier(ref, node_from_active(active));

In general, I support the idea of always checking the return
value, even if we expect a certain outcome. In these cases, the
likely/unlikely macros can be helpful. Given this change, I
believe the patch deserves an ack.

That being said, I was curious whether using an explicit lock
and a normal list of active barriers, rather than a lockless
list, could have solved the problem. It seems like using a
lockless list and iterating over it could be overkill, unless
there are specific scenarios where the lockless properties are
necessary.

Of course, this may be something to consider in a future cleanup,
as it may be outside the scope of this particular patch.

>  }
>  
>  int i915_active_add_request(struct i915_active *ref, struct i915_request *rq)
>  {
> +	u64 idx = i915_request_timeline(rq)->fence_context;
>  	struct dma_fence *fence = &rq->fence;
>  	struct i915_active_fence *active;
>  	int err;
> @@ -437,16 +437,19 @@ int i915_active_add_request(struct i915_active *ref, struct i915_request *rq)
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
>  
> -	active = active_instance(ref, i915_request_timeline(rq)->fence_context);
> -	if (!active) {
> -		err = -ENOMEM;
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> +	do {
> +		active = active_instance(ref, idx);
> +		if (!active) {
> +			err = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (replace_barrier(ref, active)) {
> +			RCU_INIT_POINTER(active->fence, NULL);
> +			atomic_dec(&ref->count);
> +		}
> +	} while (is_barrier(active));

unlikely()?

It's worth noting that for each iteration, we are rebuilding the
list of barriers. Therefore, I believe it may be necessary to
perform a cleanup within the replace_barrier() function.

Thanks,
Andi

>  
> -	if (replace_barrier(ref, active)) {
> -		RCU_INIT_POINTER(active->fence, NULL);
> -		atomic_dec(&ref->count);
> -	}
>  	if (!__i915_active_fence_set(active, fence))
>  		__i915_active_acquire(ref);
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1