Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 13:09:10 +0300
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
To:     Christian =?UTF-8?B?S8O2bmln?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        ray.huang@amd.com, airlied@linux.ie
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpu: ttm: fix GPF in ttm_bo_release
Message-ID: <20210708130910.63a15c73@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210708113701.4cea7989@gmail.com>
References: <20210707185108.3798-1-paskripkin@gmail.com>
        <f4bb7b29-3abc-a056-fc24-4e91b5de8d74@amd.com>
        <20210708113701.4cea7989@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:37:01 +0300
Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:49:48 +0200
> Christian K=C3=B6nig <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:
>=20
> > Am 07.07.21 um 20:51 schrieb Pavel Skripkin:
> > > My local syzbot instance hit GPF in ttm_bo_release().
> > > Unfortunately, syzbot didn't produce a reproducer for this, but I
> > > found out possible scenario:
> > >
> > > drm_gem_vram_create()            <-- drm_gem_vram_object kzalloced
> > > 				     (bo embedded in this object)
> > >    ttm_bo_init()
> > >      ttm_bo_init_reserved()
> > >        ttm_resource_alloc()
> > >          man->func->alloc()       <-- allocation failure
> > >        ttm_bo_put()
> > > 	ttm_bo_release()
> > > 	  ttm_mem_io_free()      <-- bo->resource =3D=3D NULL passed
> > > 				     as second argument
> > > 	     *GPF*
> > >
> > > So, I've added check in ttm_bo_release() to avoid passing
> > > NULL as second argument to ttm_mem_io_free().
>=20
> Hi, Christian!
>=20
> Thank you for quick feedback :)
>=20
> >=20
> > There is another ocassion of this a bit down before we call=20
> > ttm_bo_move_to_lru_tail() apart from that good catch.
> >=20
>=20
> Did you mean, that ttm_bo_move_to_lru_tail() should have NULL check
> too? I checked it's realization, and, I think, NULL check is necessary
> there, since mem pointer is dereferenced w/o any checking
>=20
> > But I'm wondering if we should make the functions NULL save instead
> > of the external check.
> >=20
>=20
> I tried to find more possible scenarios of GPF in ttm_bo_release(),
> but I didn't find one. But, yes, moving NULL check inside
> ttm_mem_io_free() is more general approach and it will defend this
> function from GPFs in the future.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> With regards,
> Pavel Skripkin
>=20

I misclicked and sent this email to Christian privately :(

Added all thread participants back, sorry.


With regards,
Pavel Skripkin