Re: [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct_mutex.

[Thomas Hellstrom]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 16:59 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>   
> > The basic problem was
> > mmap_sem (do_mmap()) -> struct_mutex (drm_gem_mmap(), i915_gem_fault())
> > struct_mutex (i915_gem_execbuffer()) -> mmap_sem (copy_from/to_user())
> >     
>
> That's not the only problem, there's also:
>
> dup_mmap()
>   down_write(mmap_sem)
>   vm_ops->open() -> drm_vm_open()
>     mutex_lock(struct_mutex);
>
>   
> > We have plenty of places where we want to hold device state the same
> > (struct_mutex) while we move a non-trivial amount of data
> > (copy_from/to_user()), such as i915_gem_pwrite().  Solve this by moving the
> > easy things that needed struct_mutex with mmap_sem held to using a lock to
> > cover just those data structures (offset hash and offset manager), and do
> > trylock and reschedule in fault.
> >     
>
> So we establish,
>
>   mmap_sem
>     offset_mutex
>
>   i915_gem_mmap_gtt_ioctl()
>     mutex_lock(struct_mutex)
>     i915_gem_create_mmap_offset()
>       mutex_lock(offset_mutex)
>
> However we still have
>
>   struct_mutex
>     mmap_sem
>
> in basically every copy_*_user() case
>
> But you cannot seem to switch ->fault() to use offset_mutex, which would
> work out the inversion because you then have:
>
>   struct_mutex
>     mmap_sem
>       offset_mutex
>
> So why bother with the offset_mutex? Instead you make your ->fault()
> fail randomly.
>
> I'm not sure what Wang Chen sees after this patch, but I should not be
> the exact same splat, still it would not at all surprise me if there's
> plenty left.
>
> The locking looks very fragile and I don't think this patch is helping
> anything, sorry.
>
>   
It looks to me like the driver preferred locking order is

object_mutex (which happens to be the device global struct_mutex)
 mmap_sem
    offset_mutex.

So if one could avoid using the struct_mutex for object bookkeeping (A 
separate lock) then
vm_open() and vm_close() would adhere to that locking order as well, 
simply by not taking the struct_mutex at all.

So only fault() remains, in which that locking order is reversed. 
Personally I think the trylock ->reschedule->retry method with proper 
commenting is a good solution. It will be the _only_ place where locking 
order is reversed and it is done in a deadlock-safe manner. Note that 
fault() doesn't really fail, but requests a retry from user-space with 
rescheduling to give the process holding the struct_mutex time to 
release it.

/Thomas





--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/