On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Al Viro <viro at zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:08:46AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Vaishali Thakkar >> <vaishali.thakkar at oracle.com> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I was wondering about the call to copy_from_user in function >> > submit_lookup_objects for drive >> > /gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c It calls copy_from_user[1] in a spin_lock, >> > which is not normally >> > allowed, due to the possibility of a deadlock. >> > >> > Is there some reason that I am overlooking why it is OK in this case? Is >> > there some code in the >> > same file which ensures that page fault will not occur when we are calling >> > the function holding >> > spin_lock? >> >> hmm, probably just that it isn't typical to use a swap file on these >> devices (and that lockdep/etc doesn't warn about it).. I guess we >> probably need some sort of slow-path where we drop the lock and try >> again in case there would be a fault.. > > Sigh... Folks, you don't need swap *at* *all* for copy_from_user() to block. > /* get a zero-filled 64K buffer */ > addr = mmap(NULL, 65536, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, -1, 0); > if (addr < 0) > piss off > buffer = (void *)addr; > .... > pass buf to a syscall
Sure, I know that.. but if you pass random garbage cmstream to the gpu, it will crash (the gpu) too and/or result in corrupt rendering on screen, etc. GPU submit APIs don't exist for random end users, they exist for one user that knows what it is doing (ie. mesa). I'm not saying that I shouldn't fix it (although not quite sure how yet.. taking/dropping the spinlock inside the loop is not a good option from a performance standpoint). What I am saying is that this is not something that can happen accidentally (as it could in the case of swap). But I agree that I should fix it somehow to avoid issues with an intentionally evil userspace. If there is a copy_from_user() variant that will return an error instead of blocking, I think that is really what I want so I can implement a slow-path that drops the spin-lock temporarily. BR, -R > and copy_from_user() in that syscall will have to allocate pages (and possibly > page tables as well). Which can block just fine, no swap involved. Moreover, > if you modify some parts of the buffer first, you will get the pages > containing > those modifications already present, but anything still untouched will > a) act as if it had been zeroed first and > b) possibly block on the first dereference, be it from kernel or from > userland. Worse yet, there's nothing to stop libc from using the above for > calloc() and its ilk, with your application having no way to tell. As far > as application is concerned, it has asked a library function to allocate and > zero a piece of memory, got one and yes, it does appear to be properly zeroed. > > The bottom line is, copy_from_user() can realistically block, without > anything fishy going on in the userland setup.
