From: Shuangpeng <shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Krzysztof Karas <krzysztof.karas@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jani.nikula@linux.intel.com,
joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com, rodrigo.vivi@intel.com,
tursulin@ursulin.net, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gem: Fix request use-after-free in active_engine()
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:12:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0602E2B1-4FF4-4496-916D-D4DB1C1B0830@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <zmincd7ubpkwasily6fegvx7mz6zkdw5oglbj3ynpgqovpkszh@un7lyxy6dgly>
Hi Krzysztof,
> On Aug 11, 2026, at 05:37, Krzysztof Karas <krzysztof.karas@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shuangpeng,
>
> On 2026-08-09 at 13:36:46 -0400, Shuangpeng Bai wrote:
>> active_engine() walks timeline->requests in reverse under RCU and takes a
>> temporary reference before inspecting each request. However, it drops that
>> reference in the loop body before list_for_each_entry_reverse() advances
>> the cursor.
>>
>> Concurrent retirement can unlink the same request and drop its base
>> reference while active_engine() holds the temporary reference. The put in
>> active_engine() may then be final, freeing or recycling the request before
>> the loop step reads rq->link.prev. SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU does not defer that
>> reuse.
>>
>> Open-code the reverse walk and cache the previous request while the current
>> request is still referenced. The next request remains protected by
>> i915_request_get_rcu() and validated against the timeline before use.
>>
>> An i915 mock selftest forced retirement between the active check and cursor
>> advance. The vulnerable tree reached the final request release and
>> kmem_cache_free(), while the fixed tree completed the same ordering without
>> accessing rq after the put.
> What mock selftest are you referring to?
>
Thanks for looking.
The "i915 mock selftest" I referred to was a local temporary mock
selftest.
Because generic QEMU does not expose an Intel i915 PCI device, I
used the mock engine/request infrastructure to validate only the
ordering in active_engine(). In short, the test forces
active_engine() to hold the temporary request reference while a
worker on the other CPU retires the same request, so the
subsequent i915_request_put(rq) in active_engine() becomes the
final put. That was only meant to show that this interleaving is
feasible.
I can clarify that wording in v2.
>>
>> Fixes: 3cfea8c97c93 ("drm/i915/gem: Hold request reference for canceling an active context")
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10+
>> Signed-off-by: Shuangpeng Bai <shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c
>> index c58ffa5a8fa6..ff5c892a0176 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c
>> @@ -1361,7 +1361,7 @@ static bool __cancel_engine(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> static struct intel_engine_cs *active_engine(struct intel_context *ce)
>> {
>> struct intel_engine_cs *engine = NULL;
>> - struct i915_request *rq;
>> + struct i915_request *rq, *prev;
>>
>> if (intel_context_has_inflight(ce))
>> return intel_context_inflight(ce);
>> @@ -1375,7 +1375,8 @@ static struct intel_engine_cs *active_engine(struct intel_context *ce)
>> * (and onto a new timeline->requests list).
>> */
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> - list_for_each_entry_reverse(rq, &ce->timeline->requests, link) {
>> + rq = list_last_entry(&ce->timeline->requests, typeof(*rq), link);
>> + while (!list_entry_is_head(rq, &ce->timeline->requests, link)) {
>> bool found;
>>
>> /* timeline is already completed upto this point? */
>> @@ -1387,9 +1388,14 @@ static struct intel_engine_cs *active_engine(struct intel_context *ce)
>> if (likely(rcu_access_pointer(rq->timeline) == ce->timeline))
>> found = i915_request_active_engine(rq, &engine);
>>
>> + /* Cache the cursor before the put, which may release rq. */
>> + if (!found)
> You could skip this check here and unconditionally set "prev".
> Its value is going to be used only once if found == false anyway.
>
Thanks for your comment. I'll simplify that by assigning prev
unconditionally before i915_request_put().
Please let me know if this addresses your question. If it does,
I'll send v2 with the wording clarified and prev assigned
unconditionally before i915_request_put().
Thanks,
Shuangpeng
>> + prev = list_prev_entry(rq, link);
>> i915_request_put(rq);
>> if (found)
>> break;
>> +
>> + rq = prev;
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>
>>
>> base-commit: a59f57e2aa127c5354168d2ec4bac920df1be4f4
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Krzysztof
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-12 4:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-09 17:36 Shuangpeng Bai
2026-08-11 9:37 ` Krzysztof Karas
2026-08-12 4:12 ` Shuangpeng [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0602E2B1-4FF4-4496-916D-D4DB1C1B0830@gmail.com \
--to=shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=krzysztof.karas@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tursulin@ursulin.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®