Am 04.03.20 um 17:41 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jason Ekstrand jason@jlekstrand.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:34 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 03.03.20 um 20:10 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:28 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote: [SNIP]
For reference see what dance is necessary in the dma_fence_chain_release function to avoid that:
/* Manually unlink the chain as much as possible to avoidrecursion * and potential stack overflow. */ while ((prev = rcu_dereference_protected(chain->prev, true))) {
....
It took me quite a while to figure out how to do this without causing issues. But I don't see how this would be possible for dma_fence_array.
Ah, I see the issue now! It hadn't even occurred to me that userspace could use this to build up an infinite recursion chain. That's nasty!
Yeah, when I first stumbled over it it was like why the heck is my code crashing in an interrupt handler?
Realizing that this is stack corruption because of the long chain we constructed was quite an enlightenment.
And then it took me even longer to fix it :)
I'll give this some more thought and see if can come up with something clever.
Here's one thought: We could make dma_fence_array automatically collapse any arrays it references and instead directly reference their fences. This way, no matter how much the client chains things, they will never get more than one dma_fence_array. Of course, the difficulty here (answering my own question) comes if they ping-pong back-and-forth between something which constructs a dma_fence_array and something which constructs a dma_fence_chain to get array-of-chain-of-array-of-chain-of-... More thought needed.
Condensing the fences into a larger array can certainly work, yes.
Answering my own questions again... I think the array-of-chain-of-array case is also solvable.
For array-of-chain, we can simply add all unsignaled dma_fences in the chain to the array. The array won't signal until all of them have which is exactly the same behavior as if we'd added the chain itself.
Yeah, that should work. Probably best to implement something like a cursor to walk all fences in the data structure.
For chain-of-array, we can add all unsignaled dma_fences in the array to the same point in the chain. There may be some fiddling with the chain numbering required here but I think we can get it so the chain won't signal until everything in the array has signaled and we get the same behavior as if we'd added the dma_fence_array to the chain.
Well as far as I can see this won't work because it would break the semantics of the timeline sync.
But I think I know a different way which should work: A dma_fence_chain can still contain a dma_fence_array, only the other way around is forbidden. Then we create the cursor functionality in such a way that it allows us to deep dive into the data structure and return all containing fences one by one.
I can prototype that if you want, shouldn't be more than a few hours of hacking anyway.
Regards, Christian.
In both cases, we end up with either a single array or a single and destruction doesn't require recursion. Thoughts?
--Jason