On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:29 PM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:28 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 27.07.20 um 16:05 schrieb Kazlauskas, Nicholas:
On 2020-07-27 9:39 a.m., Christian König wrote:
Am 27.07.20 um 07:40 schrieb Mazin Rezk:
This patch fixes a race condition that causes a use-after-free during amdgpu_dm_atomic_commit_tail. This can occur when 2 non-blocking commits are requested and the second one finishes before the first. Essentially, this bug occurs when the following sequence of events happens:
- Non-blocking commit #1 is requested w/ a new dm_state #1 and is
deferred to the workqueue.
- Non-blocking commit #2 is requested w/ a new dm_state #2 and is
deferred to the workqueue.
- Commit #2 starts before commit #1, dm_state #1 is used in the
commit_tail and commit #2 completes, freeing dm_state #1.
- Commit #1 starts after commit #2 completes, uses the freed dm_state
1 and dereferences a freelist pointer while setting the context.
Well I only have a one mile high view on this, but why don't you let the work items execute in order?
That would be better anyway cause this way we don't trigger a cache line ping pong between CPUs.
Christian.
We use the DRM helpers for managing drm_atomic_commit_state and those helpers internally push non-blocking commit work into the system unbound work queue.
Mhm, well if you send those helper atomic commits in the order A,B and they execute it in the order B,A I would call that a bug :)
The way it works is it pushes all commits into unbound work queue, but then forces serialization as needed. We do _not_ want e.g. updates on different CRTC to be serialized, that would result in lots of judder. And hw is funny enough that there's all kinds of dependencies.
The way you force synchronization is by adding other CRTC state objects. So if DC is busted and can only handle a single update per work item, then I guess you always need all CRTC states and everything will be run in order. But that also totally kills modern multi-screen compositors. Xorg isn't modern, just in case that's not clear :-)
Lucking at the code it seems like you indeed have only a single dm state, so yeah global sync is what you'll need as immediate fix, and then maybe fix up DM to not be quite so silly ... or at least only do the dm state stuff when really needed.
Just looked a bit more at this struct dc_state, and that looks a lot like an atomic side-wagon. I don't think that works as a private state, this should probably be embedded into a subclass of drm_atomic_state.
And probably a lot of these pointers moved to other places I think, or I'm not entirely clear on what exactly this stuff is needed for ...
dc_state is also refcounted, which is definitely rather funny for a state structure.
Feels like this entire thing (how the overall dc state machinery is glued into atomic) isn't quite thought thru just yet :-/ -Daniel
We could also sprinkle the drm_crtc_commit structure around a bit (it's the glue that provides the synchronization across commits), but since your dm state is global just grabbing all crtc states unconditionally as part of that is probably best.
While we could duplicate a copy of that code with nothing but the workqueue changed that isn't something I'd really like to maintain going forward.
I'm not talking about duplicating the code, I'm talking about fixing the helpers. I don't know that code well, but from the outside it sounds like a bug there.
And executing work items in the order they are submitted is trivial.
Had anybody pinged Daniel or other people familiar with the helper code about it?
Yeah something is wrong here, and the fix looks horrible :-)
Aside, I've also seen some recent discussion flare up about drm_atomic_state_get/put used to paper over some other use-after-free, but this time related to interrupt handlers. Maybe a few rules about that:
- dont
- especially not when it's interrupt handlers, because you can't call
drm_atomic_state_put from interrupt handlers.
Instead have an spin_lock_irq to protect the shared date with your interrupt handler, and _copy_ the date over. This is e.g. what drm_crtc_arm_vblank_event does.
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Christian.
Regards, Nicholas Kazlauskas
Since this bug has only been spotted with fast commits, this patch fixes the bug by clearing the dm_state instead of using the old dc_state for fast updates. In addition, since dm_state is only used for its dc_state and amdgpu_dm_atomic_commit_tail will retain the dc_state if none is found, removing the dm_state should not have any consequences in fast updates.
This use-after-free bug has existed for a while now, but only caused a noticeable issue starting from 5.7-rc1 due to 3202fa62f ("slub: relocate freelist pointer to middle of object") moving the freelist pointer from dm_state->base (which was unused) to dm_state->context (which is dereferenced).
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207383 Fixes: bd200d190f45 ("drm/amd/display: Don't replace the dc_state for fast updates") Reported-by: Duncan 1i5t5.duncan@cox.net Signed-off-by: Mazin Rezk mnrzk@protonmail.com
.../gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c | 36 ++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c index 86ffa0c2880f..710edc70e37e 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c @@ -8717,20 +8717,38 @@ static int amdgpu_dm_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev, * the same resource. If we have a new DC context as part of * the DM atomic state from validation we need to free it and * retain the existing one instead.
** Furthermore, since the DM atomic state only contains the DC* context and can safely be annulled, we can free the state* and clear the associated private object now to free* some memory and avoid a possible use-after-free later. */
struct dm_atomic_state *new_dm_state, *old_dm_state;new_dm_state = dm_atomic_get_new_state(state);old_dm_state = dm_atomic_get_old_state(state);
for (i = 0; i < state->num_private_objs; i++) {struct drm_private_obj *obj = state->private_objs[i].ptr;
if (new_dm_state && old_dm_state) {if (new_dm_state->context)dc_release_state(new_dm_state->context);
if (obj->funcs == adev->dm.atomic_obj.funcs) {int j = state->num_private_objs-1;
new_dm_state->context = old_dm_state->context;
dm_atomic_destroy_state(obj,state->private_objs[i].state);/* If i is not at the end of the array then the* last element needs to be moved to where i was* before the array can safely be truncated.*/if (i != j)state->private_objs[i] =state->private_objs[j];
if (old_dm_state->context)dc_retain_state(old_dm_state->context);
state->private_objs[j].ptr = NULL;state->private_objs[j].state = NULL;state->private_objs[j].old_state = NULL;state->private_objs[j].new_state = NULL;state->num_private_objs = j;break;} } }-- 2.27.0
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch