Re: [Regression] drm/scheduler: track GPU active time per entity

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:19:20PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 06.04.2023 um 14:09 +0200 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 12:45:12PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, dem 06.04.2023 um 10:27 +0200 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 10:22, Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Am 05.04.23 um 18:09 schrieb Luben Tuikov:
> > > > > > On 2023-04-05 10:05, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/4/23 06:31, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2023-03-28 04:54, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi Danilo,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 28.03.2023 um 02:57 +0200 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Commit df622729ddbf ("drm/scheduler: track GPU active time per entity")
> > > > > > > > > > tries to track the accumulated time that a job was active on the GPU
> > > > > > > > > > writing it to the entity through which the job was deployed to the
> > > > > > > > > > scheduler originally. This is done within drm_sched_get_cleanup_job()
> > > > > > > > > > which fetches a job from the schedulers pending_list.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Doing this can result in a race condition where the entity is already
> > > > > > > > > > freed, but the entity's newly added elapsed_ns field is still accessed
> > > > > > > > > > once the job is fetched from the pending_list.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > After drm_sched_entity_destroy() being called it should be safe to free
> > > > > > > > > > the structure that embeds the entity. However, a job originally handed
> > > > > > > > > > over to the scheduler by this entity might still reside in the
> > > > > > > > > > schedulers pending_list for cleanup after drm_sched_entity_destroy()
> > > > > > > > > > already being called and the entity being freed. Hence, we can run into
> > > > > > > > > > a UAF.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sorry about that, I clearly didn't properly consider this case.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > In my case it happened that a job, as explained above, was just picked
> > > > > > > > > > from the schedulers pending_list after the entity was freed due to the
> > > > > > > > > > client application exiting. Meanwhile this freed up memory was already
> > > > > > > > > > allocated for a subsequent client applications job structure again.
> > > > > > > > > > Hence, the new jobs memory got corrupted. Luckily, I was able to
> > > > > > > > > > reproduce the same corruption over and over again by just using
> > > > > > > > > > deqp-runner to run a specific set of VK test cases in parallel.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Fixing this issue doesn't seem to be very straightforward though (unless
> > > > > > > > > > I miss something), which is why I'm writing this mail instead of sending
> > > > > > > > > > a fix directly.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Spontaneously, I see three options to fix it:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Rather than embedding the entity into driver specific structures
> > > > > > > > > > (e.g. tied to file_priv) we could allocate the entity separately and
> > > > > > > > > > reference count it, such that it's only freed up once all jobs that were
> > > > > > > > > > deployed through this entity are fetched from the schedulers pending list.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > My vote is on this or something in similar vain for the long term. I
> > > > > > > > > have some hope to be able to add a GPU scheduling algorithm with a bit
> > > > > > > > > more fairness than the current one sometime in the future, which
> > > > > > > > > requires execution time tracking on the entities.
> > > > > > > > Danilo,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Using kref is preferable, i.e. option 1 above.
> > > > > > > I think the only real motivation for doing that would be for generically
> > > > > > > tracking job statistics within the entity a job was deployed through. If
> > > > > > > we all agree on tracking job statistics this way I am happy to prepare a
> > > > > > > patch for this option and drop this one:
> > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230331000622.4156-1-dakr@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> > > > > > Hmm, I never thought about "job statistics" when I preferred using kref above.
> > > > > > The reason kref is attractive is because one doesn't need to worry about
> > > > > > it--when the last user drops the kref, the release is called to do
> > > > > > housekeeping. If this never happens, we know that we have a bug to debug.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, reference counting unfortunately have some traps as well. For
> > > > > example rarely dropping the last reference from interrupt context or
> > > > > with some unexpected locks help when the cleanup function doesn't expect
> > > > > that is a good recipe for problems as well.
> > > > > 
> > > Fully agreed.
> > > 
> > > > > > Regarding the patch above--I did look around the code, and it seems safe,
> > > > > > as per your analysis, I didn't see any reference to entity after job submission,
> > > > > > but I'll comment on that thread as well for the record.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reference counting the entities was suggested before. The intentionally
> > > > > avoided that so far because the entity might be the tip of the iceberg
> > > > > of stuff you need to keep around.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example for command submission you also need the VM and when you
> > > > > keep the VM alive you also need to keep the file private alive....
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah refcounting looks often like the easy way out to avoid
> > > > use-after-free issue, until you realize you've just made lifetimes
> > > > unbounded and have some enourmous leaks: entity keeps vm alive, vm
> > > > keeps all the bo alives, somehow every crash wastes more memory
> > > > because vk_device_lost means userspace allocates new stuff for
> > > > everything.
> > > > 
> > > > If possible a lifetime design where lifetimes have hard bounds and you
> > > > just borrow a reference under a lock (or some other ownership rule) is
> > > > generally much more solid. But also much harder to design correctly
> > > > :-/
> > > > 
> > > The use we are discussing here is to keep the entity alive as long as
> > > jobs from that entity are still active on the HW. While there are no
> > > hard bounds on when a job will get inactive, at least it's not
> > > unbounded. On a crash/fault the job will be removed from the hardware
> > > pretty soon.
> > > 
> > > Well behaved jobs after a application shutdown might take a little
> > > longer, but I don't really see the new problem with keeping the entity
> > > alive? As long as a job is active on the hardware, we can't throw out
> > > the VM or BOs, no difference whether the entity is kept alive or not.
> > > 
> > > Some hardware might have ways to expedite job inactivation by
> > > deactivating scheduling queues, or just taking a fault, but for some HW
> > > we'll just have to wait for the job to finish.
> > 
> > Shouldn't the scheduler's timed_out/tdr logic take care of these? It's
> > probably not good to block in something like the close(drmfd) or process
> > exit() for these, but it's all dma_fence underneath and those _must_
> > singal in finite time no matter what. So shouldn't be a deadlock problem,
> > but might still be a "userspace really doesn't like a big stall there"
> > problem.
> 
> I'm not sure if we are talking past each other here. I don't really
> follow where you see the problem here?
> 
> If the hardware works as expected and the job is behaving well, it will
> finish in finite time when the HW is done with the job. When the job is
> bad and crashes the HW, sure it will be shot down by the timeout
> handling. Both cases will signal the fences and clean up resources
> eventually.
> 
> Keeping the scheduler entity alive is really orthogonal to that. If the
> entity is kept alive until the job is cleaned up we could potentially
> add more common state, like the GPU time tracking, to the entity
> without the risk of use after free.

I think we're both saying the same thing, just gotten a bit confused with
phrasing things ...
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch