Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/gsp: fix mismatched alloc/free for kvmalloc()

[Zhi Wang <zhiw@nvidia.com>]

On 13/08/2025 1.52, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 17:19 +0800, Qianfeng Rong wrote:
>> Replace kfree() with kvfree() for memory allocated by kvmalloc().
>>
>> Compile-tested only.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Timur Tabi <ttabi@nvidia.com>
> 
> This does fix a real bug.
> 

Agree with the coding details.

I felt the core issue is that GSP RPC lifecycle management in NVKM is 
not handled cleanly. For example, the caller’s RPC buffer is freed 
silently in the receive path, and a new buffer is allocated and returned 
without explicit coordination.

Introducing large GSP RPCs - such as factoring out 
r535_gsp_msgq_recv_one_elem() - only makes this flaw more apparent, and 
even the refactoring process is cumbersome and tricky.

Ideally, there should be a clear ownership and lifecycle flow between 
the caller and the GSP RPC routines: the caller allocates and frees the 
RPC buffer, while the low-level routines focus solely on send/receive 
operations. r535_gsp_msgq_recv_one_elem() is just on its half way.

Z.

> However, I think the real problem is that it's really confusing that
> r535_gsp_msgq_recv_one_elem(gsp, &info) returns info.gsp_rpc_buf instead of just success/failure.
> r535_gsp_msgq_recv() does this:
> 
> 	buf = kvmalloc(max_t(u32, rpc->length, expected), GFP_KERNEL);
> ...
> 	info.gsp_rpc_buf = buf;
> ...
> 	buf = r535_gsp_msgq_recv_one_elem(gsp, &info);
> 
> You wouldn't know it, but this does not change the value of 'buf' unless
> r535_gsp_msgq_recv_one_elem() fails.  If it does fail, the code does this:
> 
> 	if (IS_ERR(buf)) {
> 		kvfree(info.gsp_rpc_buf);
> 
> It would be a lot clearer if we could kvfree(buf) here, but we can't because 'buf' no longer points
> to the buffer, even though the buffer still exists.
> 
>