Re: [PATCH v18 22/26] drm/shmem-helper: Don't free refcounted GEM

[Boris Brezillon]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 01:30:24 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 11/13/23 12:54, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 02:02:01 +0300
> > Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >> Don't free refcounted shmem object to prevent use-after-free bug that
> >> is worse than a memory leak.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 ++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> >> index 6dd087f19ea3..4253c367dc07 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> >> @@ -203,9 +203,10 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_free(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >>  	if (obj->import_attach)
> >>  		drm_prime_gem_destroy(obj, shmem->sgt);
> >>  
> >> -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->vmap_use_count));
> >> -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->pages_use_count));
> >> -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->pages_pin_count));
> >> +	if (drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->vmap_use_count)) ||
> >> +	    drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->pages_use_count)) ||
> >> +	    drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->pages_pin_count)))
> >> +		return;  
> > 
> > I guess you're worried about ->sgt being referenced by the driver after
> > the GEM is destroyed. If we assume drivers don't cache the sgt and
> > always call get_pages_sgt() when they need it that shouldn't be an
> > issue. What we really don't want to release is the pages themselves,
> > but the GPU MMU might still have active mappings pointing to these
> > pages.
> > 
> > In any case, I'm not against leaking the GEM object when any of these
> > counters are not zero, but can we at least have a comment in the
> > code explaining why we're doing that, so people don't have to go look
> > at the git history to figure it out.  
> 
> This patch is a minor improvement, it doesn't address any specific
> issue. This should be a common pattern in kernel. If you're giving a
> warning and know about the inevitable catastrophe, then avoid it if you can.

Sure, I'm just asking that we add a comment to explain why we leak
memory here. Is that too much to ask?