Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/panthor: Don't use the racy drm_gem_lru_remove() helper

[Rob Clark]

On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 8:03 AM Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2026 15:40:51 +0100
> Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 02:10:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 May 2026 11:01:25 +0100
> > > Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 02:16:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > > drm_gem_lru_remove() dereference stores drm_gem_object::lru in a local
> > > > > variable that's then dereferenced to acquire the LRU lock. Because this
> > > > > assignment in done without the LRU lock held, it can race with
> > > > > drm_gem_lru_scan() where drm_gem_object::lru is temporarily assigned
> > > > > a stack-allcated LRU that goes away when leaving the function. By
> > > > > the time we dereference this local lru variable, the object might already
> > > > > be gone.
> > > > >
> > > > > It feels like drm_gem_lru_move_tail() was never meant to be used this
> > > > > way, because there's no easy way we can avoid this race unless we defer
> > > > > the locking to the caller. Let's add an explicit LRU for unreclaimable
> > > > > BOs instead, and have all BOs added to this LRU at creation time.
> > > >
> > > > I would argue that drm_gem_lru_scan() is broken by design. If you're going
> > > > to release the LRU lock in the middle of a loop you can expect that someone
> > > > will get hold of your stack-allocated LRU and end up picking the pieces.
> > >
> > > I think it's fine as long as you always use the drm_gem_lru helpers to
> > > manipulate the lru field, which is true of a lot of kernel constructs.
> >
> > I think drm_gem_lru_scan() should never set an object's lru field to still_in_lru.
> > It should set it to NULL when the object's node is removed from its lru and add
> > it into still_in_lru without making the drm_gem_object->lru to point back to it.
> > At the very end when we splice back the still_in_lru list back into lru's list we
> > can then update obj->lru.
>
> Then you run into another race between drm_gem_lru_scan() and
> drm_gem_object_release(), where the LRU removal in _release() is
> skipped because obj->lru is NULL, and all of a sudden, the still_in_lru
> list has an element that's freed. Honestly, I don't think obj->lru
> pointing to a stack allocated object is a problem as long as we don't
> let gem users play freely with obj->lru (which we shouldn't do anyway).

Holding a ref while we drop the lock should keep us out of
drm_gem_object_release()..

But yeah, we should probably just document this..

BR,
-R

> >
> > >
> > > > This patch is fine in itself by trying to avoid stepping into the fight,
> > > > but I think we should also add a warning in drm_gem_lru_scan() for future
> > > > users to be aware of the dangers.
> > >
> > > Warning the user about what? There's nothing they can do about it, and
> > > I don't even think it's unsafe per-se, unless someone goes off and
> > > stores the drm_gem_object::lru value somewhere else while their shrink()
> > > callback is called, and accesses it later, outside the shrinker path.
> > > Given drm_gem_lru is not refcounted, there's no way one could safely
> > > hold on the LRU they saw in the shrink() callback anyway, so I don't
> > > think that's fair to blame the drm_gem_lru API for this kind of misuse.
> >
> > Yeah, that would be the warning: don't store the object's lru as you might
> > get a temporary one that will become invalid after the shrinker has run.
>
> Oh, you mean a comment explaining this should be avoided, not an actual
> drm_warn(). Then yes, I think it's fine to document the expectations in
> the drm_gem_object::lru doc.