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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210818073824.1560124-1-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
 <20210818073824.1560124-8-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com> <YRzo4PJ/XRS3O199@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <874c94a4-1c33-c83a-ac3a-04b761013d40@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <874c94a4-1c33-c83a-ac3a-04b761013d40@gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:21:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uFHHCtJasWmjkMm8ZrBkOqJKswwyteWF77Gga=PuY7Kcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 7/9] drm: update global mutex lock in the
 ioctl handler
To:     Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:53 PM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
<desmondcheongzx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/8/21 7:02 pm, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:38:22PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> >> In a future patch, a read lock on drm_device.master_rwsem is
> >> held in the ioctl handler before the check for ioctl
> >> permissions. However, this produces the following lockdep splat:
> >>
> >> ======================================================
> >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> >> 5.14.0-rc6-CI-Patchwork_20831+ #1 Tainted: G     U
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> kms_lease/1752 is trying to acquire lock:
> >> ffffffff827bad88 (drm_global_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_open+0x64/0x280
> >>
> >> but task is already holding lock:
> >> ffff88812e350108 (&dev->master_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at:
> >> drm_ioctl_kernel+0xfb/0x1a0
> >>
> >> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >>
> >> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >>
> >> -> #2 (&dev->master_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}:
> >>         lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310
> >>         down_read+0x3b/0x140
> >>         drm_master_internal_acquire+0x1d/0x60
> >>         drm_client_modeset_commit+0x10/0x40
> >>         __drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x88/0xb0
> >>         drm_fb_helper_set_par+0x34/0x40
> >>         intel_fbdev_set_par+0x11/0x40 [i915]
> >>         fbcon_init+0x270/0x4f0
> >>         visual_init+0xc6/0x130
> >>         do_bind_con_driver+0x1de/0x2c0
> >>         do_take_over_console+0x10e/0x180
> >>         do_fbcon_takeover+0x53/0xb0
> >>         register_framebuffer+0x22d/0x310
> >>         __drm_fb_helper_initial_config_and_unlock+0x36c/0x540
> >>         intel_fbdev_initial_config+0xf/0x20 [i915]
> >>         async_run_entry_fn+0x28/0x130
> >>         process_one_work+0x26d/0x5c0
> >>         worker_thread+0x37/0x390
> >>         kthread+0x13b/0x170
> >>         ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> >>
> >> -> #1 (&helper->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> >>         lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310
> >>         __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x930
> >>         __drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x44/0xb0
> >>         intel_fbdev_restore_mode+0x2b/0x50 [i915]
> >>         drm_lastclose+0x27/0x50
> >>         drm_release_noglobal+0x42/0x60
> >>         __fput+0x9e/0x250
> >>         task_work_run+0x6b/0xb0
> >>         exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1c5/0x1d0
> >>         syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50
> >>         do_syscall_64+0x46/0xb0
> >>         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >>
> >> -> #0 (drm_global_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> >>         validate_chain+0xb39/0x1e70
> >>         __lock_acquire+0x5a1/0xb70
> >>         lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310
> >>         __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x930
> >>         drm_open+0x64/0x280
> >>         drm_stub_open+0x9f/0x100
> >>         chrdev_open+0x9f/0x1d0
> >>         do_dentry_open+0x14a/0x3a0
> >>         dentry_open+0x53/0x70
> >>         drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl+0x3cb/0x970
> >>         drm_ioctl_kernel+0xc9/0x1a0
> >>         drm_ioctl+0x201/0x3d0
> >>         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x6a/0xa0
> >>         do_syscall_64+0x37/0xb0
> >>         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >>
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >> Chain exists of:
> >>    drm_global_mutex --> &helper->lock --> &dev->master_rwsem
> >>   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >>         CPU0                    CPU1
> >>         ----                    ----
> >>    lock(&dev->master_rwsem);
> >>                                 lock(&helper->lock);
> >>                                 lock(&dev->master_rwsem);
> >>    lock(drm_global_mutex);
> >>
> >>   *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>
> >> The lock hierarchy inversion happens because we grab the
> >> drm_global_mutex while already holding on to master_rwsem. To avoid
> >> this, we do some prep work to grab the drm_global_mutex before
> >> checking for ioctl permissions.
> >>
> >> At the same time, we update the check for the global mutex to use the
> >> drm_dev_needs_global_mutex helper function.
> >
> > This is intentional, essentially we force all non-legacy drivers to have
> > unlocked ioctl (otherwise everyone forgets to set that flag).
> >
> > For non-legacy drivers the global lock only ensures ordering between
> > drm_open and lastclose (I think at least), and between
> > drm_dev_register/unregister and the backwards ->load/unload callbacks
> > (which are called in the wrong place, but we cannot fix that for legacy
> > drivers).
> >
> > ->load/unload should be completely unused (maybe radeon still uses it),
> > and ->lastclose is also on the decline.
> >
>
> Ah ok got it, I'll change the check back to
> drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY) then.
>
> > Maybe we should update the comment of drm_global_mutex to explain what it
> > protects and why.
> >
>
> The comments in drm_dev_needs_global_mutex make sense I think, I just
> didn't read the code closely enough.
>
> > I'm also confused how this patch connects to the splat, since for i915 we
>
> Right, my bad, this is a separate instance of circular locking. I was
> too hasty when I saw that for legacy drivers we might grab master_rwsem
> then drm_global_mutex in the ioctl handler.
>
> > shouldn't be taking the drm_global_lock here at all. The problem seems to
> > be the drm_open_helper when we create a new lease, which is an entirely
> > different can of worms.
> >
> > I'm honestly not sure how to best do that, but we should be able to create
> > a file and then call drm_open_helper directly, or well a version of that
> > which never takes the drm_global_mutex. Because that is not needed for
> > nested drm_file opening:
> > - legacy drivers never go down this path because leases are only supported
> >    with modesetting, and modesetting is only supported for non-legacy
> >    drivers
> > - the races against dev->open_count due to last_close or ->load callbacks
> >    don't matter, because for the entire ioctl we already have an open
> >    drm_file and that wont disappear.
> >
> > So this should work, but I'm not entirely sure how to make it work.
> > -Daniel
> >
>
> One idea that comes to mind is to change the outcome of
> drm_dev_needs_global_mutex while we're in the ioctl, but that requires
> more locking which sounds like a bad idea.
>
> Another idea, which is quite messy, but just for thoughts, uses the idea
> of pushing the master_rwsem read lock down:

Yeah I think that's cleaner, and I think that also should work a lot
better for the other ioctls:
- We don't have a need to flush readers anymore since we'll just take
the rwsem in write mode
- There's much less inversions, and maybe we could even get rid of the
spinlock since at that point all readers should at least have the
rwsem read-locked.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
> index 7f523e1c5650..5d05e744b728 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
> @@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static const struct drm_ioctl_desc drm_ioctls[] = {
>                       DRM_RENDER_ALLOW),
>         DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_GET_SEQUENCE, drm_crtc_get_sequence_ioctl, 0),
>         DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_QUEUE_SEQUENCE, drm_crtc_queue_sequence_ioctl, 0),
> -       DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_LEASE, drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl, DRM_MASTER),
> +       DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_LEASE, drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl, 0),
>         DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_LIST_LESSEES, drm_mode_list_lessees_ioctl, DRM_MASTER),
>         DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_GET_LEASE, drm_mode_get_lease_ioctl, DRM_MASTER),
>         DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_REVOKE_LEASE, drm_mode_revoke_lease_ioctl, DRM_MASTER),
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c
> index 983701198ffd..a25bc69522b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c
> @@ -500,6 +500,19 @@ int drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
>
> +       /* Clone the lessor file to create a new file for us */
> +       DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("Allocating lease file\n");
> +       lessee_file = file_clone_open(lessor_file);
> +       if (IS_ERR(lessee_file))
> +               return PTR_ERR(lessee_file);
> +
> +       down_read(&dev->master_rwsem);
> +
> +       if (!drm_is_current_master(lessor_priv)) {
> +               ret = -EACCES;
> +               goto out_file;
> +       }
> +
>         lessor = drm_file_get_master(lessor_priv);
>         /* Do not allow sub-leases */
>         if (lessor->lessor) {
> @@ -547,14 +560,6 @@ int drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
>                 goto out_leases;
>         }
>
> -       /* Clone the lessor file to create a new file for us */
> -       DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("Allocating lease file\n");
> -       lessee_file = file_clone_open(lessor_file);
> -       if (IS_ERR(lessee_file)) {
> -               ret = PTR_ERR(lessee_file);
> -               goto out_lessee;
> -       }
> -
>         lessee_priv = lessee_file->private_data;
>         /* Change the file to a master one */
>         drm_master_put(&lessee_priv->master);
> @@ -571,17 +576,19 @@ int drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
>         fd_install(fd, lessee_file);
>
>         drm_master_put(&lessor);
> +       up_read(&dev->master_rwsem);
>         DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl succeeded\n");
>         return 0;
>
> -out_lessee:
> -       drm_master_put(&lessee);
> -
>   out_leases:
>         put_unused_fd(fd);
>
>   out_lessor:
>         drm_master_put(&lessor);
> +
> +out_file:
> +       up_read(&dev->master_rwsem);
> +       fput(lessee_file);
>         DRM_DEBUG_LEASE("drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl failed: %d\n", ret);
>         return ret;
>   }
>
>
> Something like this would also address the other deadlock we'd hit in
> drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl():
>
>    drm_ioctl_kernel():
>      down_read(&master_rwsem);               <--- down_read()
>      drm_mode_create_lease_ioctl():
>        drm_lease_create():
>          file_clone_open():
>            ...
>            drm_open():
>              drm_open_helper():
>                drm_master_open():
>                  down_write(&master_rwsem);  <--- down_write()
>
> Overall, I think the suggestion to push master_rwsem write locks down
> into ioctls would solve the nesting problem for those ioctls.

Yup, my gut feeling agress. And the above is a nice solution without
having to dig out all the code for creating a file directly (it's
doable I think at least, we do it for dma-buf).

> Although I'm still a little concerned that, just like here, there might
> be deeply embedded nested locking, so locking becomes prone to breaking.
> It does smell a bit to me.

Yeah, that's pretty much the bane of locking cleanup/rework. You have
to do it to figure out what goes boom :-/ Even with the most careful
audit there's surprises left.
-Daniel

> >> Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
> >> index 880fc565d599..2cb57378a787 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
> >> @@ -779,19 +779,19 @@ long drm_ioctl_kernel(struct file *file, drm_ioctl_t *func, void *kdata,
> >>      if (drm_dev_is_unplugged(dev))
> >>              return -ENODEV;
> >>
> >> +    /* Enforce sane locking for modern driver ioctls. */
> >> +    if (unlikely(drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(dev)) && !(flags & DRM_UNLOCKED))
> >> +            mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex);
> >> +
> >>      retcode = drm_ioctl_permit(flags, file_priv);
> >>      if (unlikely(retcode))
> >> -            return retcode;
> >> +            goto out;
> >>
> >> -    /* Enforce sane locking for modern driver ioctls. */
> >> -    if (likely(!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY)) ||
> >> -        (flags & DRM_UNLOCKED))
> >> -            retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv);
> >> -    else {
> >> -            mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex);
> >> -            retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv);
> >> +    retcode = func(dev, kdata, file_priv);
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> +    if (unlikely(drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(dev)) && !(flags & DRM_UNLOCKED))
> >>              mutex_unlock(&drm_global_mutex);
> >> -    }
> >>      return retcode;
> >>   }
> >>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_ioctl_kernel);
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >>
> >
>


-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch