Racing conflict could be: task A task B list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name)) list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name) kzalloc kzalloc ...... ..... device_create device_create list_add list_add
The root cause is that task B has no idea about the fact someone else(A) has inserted heap with same name when it calls list_add, so a potential collision occurs.
Fixes: c02a81fba74f ("dma-buf: Add dma-buf heaps framework") Signed-off-by: Dawei Li set_pte_at@outlook.com --- v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/TYCP286MB2323950197F60FC3473123B7CA349@TYCP286MB... v1->v2: Narrow down locking scope, check the existence of heap before insertion, as suggested by Andrew Davis. v2->v3: Remove double checking. v3->v4: Minor coding style and patch formatting adjustment. --- drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c index 8f5848aa144f..59d158873f4c 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c @@ -233,18 +233,6 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); }
- /* check the name is unique */ - mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock); - list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) { - if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) { - mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock); - pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n", - exp_info->name); - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); - } - } - mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock); - heap = kzalloc(sizeof(*heap), GFP_KERNEL); if (!heap) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); @@ -283,13 +271,27 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) err_ret = ERR_CAST(dev_ret); goto err2; } - /* Add heap to the list */ + mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock); + /* check the name is unique */ + list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) { + if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) { + mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock); + pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n", + exp_info->name); + err_ret = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + goto err3; + } + } + + /* Add heap to the list */ list_add(&heap->list, &heap_list); mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
return heap;
+err3: + device_destroy(dma_heap_class, heap->heap_devt); err2: cdev_del(&heap->heap_cdev); err1:
On 11/4/22 11:05 AM, Dawei Li wrote:
Racing conflict could be: task A task B list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name)) list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name) kzalloc kzalloc ...... ..... device_create device_create list_add list_add
The root cause is that task B has no idea about the fact someone else(A) has inserted heap with same name when it calls list_add, so a potential collision occurs.
Fixes: c02a81fba74f ("dma-buf: Add dma-buf heaps framework") Signed-off-by: Dawei Li set_pte_at@outlook.com
LGTM, Thanks,
Acked-by: Andrew Davis afd@ti.com
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/TYCP286MB2323950197F60FC3473123B7CA349@TYCP286MB... v1->v2: Narrow down locking scope, check the existence of heap before insertion, as suggested by Andrew Davis. v2->v3: Remove double checking. v3->v4: Minor coding style and patch formatting adjustment.
drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c index 8f5848aa144f..59d158873f4c 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c @@ -233,18 +233,6 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); }
- /* check the name is unique */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
- }
- mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
- heap = kzalloc(sizeof(*heap), GFP_KERNEL); if (!heap) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -283,13 +271,27 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) err_ret = ERR_CAST(dev_ret); goto err2; }
- /* Add heap to the list */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- /* check the name is unique */
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
err_ret = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
goto err3;
}
- }
- /* Add heap to the list */ list_add(&heap->list, &heap_list); mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
return heap; +err3:
- device_destroy(dma_heap_class, heap->heap_devt); err2: cdev_del(&heap->heap_cdev); err1:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 12:05:36AM +0800, Dawei Li wrote:
Hi Christian, May I have your opinion on this change?
Thanks, Dawei
Racing conflict could be: task A task B list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name)) list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name) kzalloc kzalloc ...... ..... device_create device_create list_add list_add
The root cause is that task B has no idea about the fact someone else(A) has inserted heap with same name when it calls list_add, so a potential collision occurs.
Fixes: c02a81fba74f ("dma-buf: Add dma-buf heaps framework") Signed-off-by: Dawei Li set_pte_at@outlook.com
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/TYCP286MB2323950197F60FC3473123B7CA349@TYCP286MB... v1->v2: Narrow down locking scope, check the existence of heap before insertion, as suggested by Andrew Davis. v2->v3: Remove double checking. v3->v4: Minor coding style and patch formatting adjustment.
drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c index 8f5848aa144f..59d158873f4c 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c @@ -233,18 +233,6 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); }
- /* check the name is unique */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
- }
- mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
- heap = kzalloc(sizeof(*heap), GFP_KERNEL); if (!heap) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -283,13 +271,27 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) err_ret = ERR_CAST(dev_ret); goto err2; }
- /* Add heap to the list */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- /* check the name is unique */
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
err_ret = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
goto err3;
}
- }
- /* Add heap to the list */ list_add(&heap->list, &heap_list); mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
return heap; +err3:
- device_destroy(dma_heap_class, heap->heap_devt);
err2: cdev_del(&heap->heap_cdev); err1: -- 2.25.1
Hi Dawei,
from the technical description, coding style etc.. it looks clean to me, but I'm the completely wrong person to ask for a background check.
I have a high level understanding of how dma-heaps work, but not a single line of this code is from me.
Feel free to add my Acked-by, but Laura, John and others do you have any opinion?
Regards, Christian.
Am 21.11.22 um 16:28 schrieb Dawei Li:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 12:05:36AM +0800, Dawei Li wrote:
Hi Christian, May I have your opinion on this change?
Thanks, Dawei
Racing conflict could be: task A task B list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name)) list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name) kzalloc kzalloc ...... ..... device_create device_create list_add list_add
The root cause is that task B has no idea about the fact someone else(A) has inserted heap with same name when it calls list_add, so a potential collision occurs.
Fixes: c02a81fba74f ("dma-buf: Add dma-buf heaps framework") Signed-off-by: Dawei Li set_pte_at@outlook.com
v1: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kerne... v1->v2: Narrow down locking scope, check the existence of heap before insertion, as suggested by Andrew Davis. v2->v3: Remove double checking. v3->v4: Minor coding style and patch formatting adjustment.
drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c index 8f5848aa144f..59d158873f4c 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c @@ -233,18 +233,6 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); }
- /* check the name is unique */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
- }
- mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
- heap = kzalloc(sizeof(*heap), GFP_KERNEL); if (!heap) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -283,13 +271,27 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) err_ret = ERR_CAST(dev_ret); goto err2; }
- /* Add heap to the list */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- /* check the name is unique */
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
err_ret = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
goto err3;
}
- }
- /* Add heap to the list */ list_add(&heap->list, &heap_list); mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
return heap; +err3:
- device_destroy(dma_heap_class, heap->heap_devt); err2: cdev_del(&heap->heap_cdev); err1:
-- 2.25.1
Hi Dawei Li,
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 23:53, Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Hi Dawei,
from the technical description, coding style etc.. it looks clean to me, but I'm the completely wrong person to ask for a background check.
I have a high level understanding of how dma-heaps work, but not a single line of this code is from me.
Feel free to add my Acked-by, but Laura, John and others do you have any opinion?
Regards, Christian.
Am 21.11.22 um 16:28 schrieb Dawei Li:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 12:05:36AM +0800, Dawei Li wrote:
Hi Christian, May I have your opinion on this change?
Thanks, Dawei
Racing conflict could be: task A task B list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name)) list_for_each_entry strcmp(h->name) kzalloc kzalloc ...... ..... device_create device_create list_add list_add
The root cause is that task B has no idea about the fact someone else(A) has inserted heap with same name when it calls list_add, so a potential collision occurs.
Fixes: c02a81fba74f ("dma-buf: Add dma-buf heaps framework") Signed-off-by: Dawei Li set_pte_at@outlook.com
Looks good to me as well. I will apply it over on drm-misc.
Best, Sumit.
v1: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kerne... v1->v2: Narrow down locking scope, check the existence of heap before insertion, as suggested by Andrew Davis. v2->v3: Remove double checking. v3->v4: Minor coding style and patch formatting adjustment.
drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c index 8f5848aa144f..59d158873f4c 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c @@ -233,18 +233,6 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); }
- /* check the name is unique */
- mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
- }
- mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
- heap = kzalloc(sizeof(*heap), GFP_KERNEL); if (!heap) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -283,13 +271,27 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) err_ret = ERR_CAST(dev_ret); goto err2; }
- /* Add heap to the list */
mutex_lock(&heap_list_lock);
/* check the name is unique */
list_for_each_entry(h, &heap_list, list) {
if (!strcmp(h->name, exp_info->name)) {
mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
pr_err("dma_heap: Already registered heap named %s\n",
exp_info->name);
err_ret = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
goto err3;
}
}
/* Add heap to the list */ list_add(&heap->list, &heap_list); mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock);
return heap;
+err3:
- device_destroy(dma_heap_class, heap->heap_devt); err2: cdev_del(&heap->heap_cdev); err1:
-- 2.25.1
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:24 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Hi Dawei,
from the technical description, coding style etc.. it looks clean to me, but I'm the completely wrong person to ask for a background check.
I have a high level understanding of how dma-heaps work, but not a single line of this code is from me.
Feel free to add my Acked-by, but Laura, John and others do you have any opinion?
No objection from me. Thanks Dawei for submitting this improvement!
Acked-by: John Stultz jstultz@google.com
thanks -john
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org