[Spice-devel] [PATCH] drm/gem: Expose the buffer object handle to userspace last
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Mon Feb 20 09:55:50 UTC 2023
Hi,
On 14/02/2023 13:59, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.02.23 um 13:50 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> Currently drm_gem_handle_create_tail exposes the handle to userspace
>> before the buffer object constructions is complete. This allowing
>> of working against a partially constructed object, which may also be in
>> the process of having its creation fail, can have a range of negative
>> outcomes.
>>
>> A lot of those will depend on what the individual drivers are doing in
>> their obj->funcs->open() callbacks, and also with a common failure mode
>> being -ENOMEM from drm_vma_node_allow.
>>
>> We can make sure none of this can happen by allocating a handle last,
>> although with a downside that more of the function now runs under the
>> dev->object_name_lock.
>>
>> Looking into the individual drivers open() hooks, we have
>> amdgpu_gem_object_open which seems like it could have a potential
>> security
>> issue without this change.
>>
>> A couple drivers like qxl_gem_object_open and vmw_gem_object_open
>> implement no-op hooks so no impact for them.
>>
>> A bunch of other require a deeper look by individual owners to asses for
>> impact. Those are lima_gem_object_open, nouveau_gem_object_open,
>> panfrost_gem_open, radeon_gem_object_open and virtio_gpu_gem_object_open.
>>
>> Putting aside the risk assesment of the above, some common scenarios to
>> think about are along these lines:
>>
>> 1)
>> Userspace closes a handle by speculatively "guessing" it from a second
>> thread.
>>
>> This results in an unreachable buffer object so, a memory leak.
>>
>> 2)
>> Same as 1), but object is in the process of getting closed (failed
>> creation).
>>
>> The second thread is then able to re-cycle the handle and idr_remove
>> would
>> in the first thread would then remove the handle it does not own from the
>> idr.
>>
>> 3)
>> Going back to the earlier per driver problem space - individual impact
>> assesment of allowing a second thread to access and operate on a
>> partially
>> constructed handle / object. (Can something crash? Leak information?)
>>
>> In terms of identifying when the problem started I will tag some patches
>> as references, but not all, if even any, of them actually point to a
>> broken state. I am just identifying points at which more opportunity for
>> issues to arise was added.
>
> Yes I've looked into this once as well, but couldn't completely solve it
> for some reason.
>
> Give me a day or two to get this tested and all the logic swapped back
> into my head again.
Managed to recollect what the problem with earlier attempts was?
Regards,
Tvrtko
> Christian.
>
>>
>> References: 304eda32920b ("drm/gem: add hooks to notify driver when
>> object handle is created/destroyed")
>> References: ca481c9b2a3a ("drm/gem: implement vma access management")
>> References: b39b5394fabc ("drm/gem: Add drm_gem_object_funcs")
>> Cc: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>
>> Cc: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com>
>> Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Noralf Trønnes <noralf at tronnes.org>
>> Cc: David Airlie <airlied at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
>> Cc: amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: lima at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com>
>> Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org
>> Cc: spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Zack Rusin <zackr at vmware.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c
>> index aa15c52ae182..e3d897bca0f2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c
>> @@ -356,52 +356,52 @@ drm_gem_handle_create_tail(struct drm_file
>> *file_priv,
>> u32 *handlep)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = obj->dev;
>> - u32 handle;
>> int ret;
>> WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev->object_name_lock));
>> if (obj->handle_count++ == 0)
>> drm_gem_object_get(obj);
>> + ret = drm_vma_node_allow(&obj->vma_node, file_priv);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto err_put;
>> +
>> + if (obj->funcs->open) {
>> + ret = obj->funcs->open(obj, file_priv);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto err_revoke;
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> - * Get the user-visible handle using idr. Preload and perform
>> - * allocation under our spinlock.
>> + * Get the user-visible handle using idr as the _last_ step.
>> + * Preload and perform allocation under our spinlock.
>> */
>> idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
>> spin_lock(&file_priv->table_lock);
>> -
>> ret = idr_alloc(&file_priv->object_idr, obj, 1, 0, GFP_NOWAIT);
>> -
>> spin_unlock(&file_priv->table_lock);
>> idr_preload_end();
>> - mutex_unlock(&dev->object_name_lock);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> - goto err_unref;
>> -
>> - handle = ret;
>> + goto err_close;
>> - ret = drm_vma_node_allow(&obj->vma_node, file_priv);
>> - if (ret)
>> - goto err_remove;
>> + mutex_unlock(&dev->object_name_lock);
>> - if (obj->funcs->open) {
>> - ret = obj->funcs->open(obj, file_priv);
>> - if (ret)
>> - goto err_revoke;
>> - }
>> + *handlep = ret;
>> - *handlep = handle;
>> return 0;
>> +err_close:
>> + if (obj->funcs->close)
>> + obj->funcs->close(obj, file_priv);
>> err_revoke:
>> drm_vma_node_revoke(&obj->vma_node, file_priv);
>> -err_remove:
>> - spin_lock(&file_priv->table_lock);
>> - idr_remove(&file_priv->object_idr, handle);
>> - spin_unlock(&file_priv->table_lock);
>> -err_unref:
>> - drm_gem_object_handle_put_unlocked(obj);
>> +err_put:
>> + if (--obj->handle_count == 0)
>> + drm_gem_object_put(obj);
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&dev->object_name_lock);
>> +
>> return ret;
>> }
>
More information about the Spice-devel
mailing list