The bot is right, and this is worse than a wording problem: 1/3 does
introduce the race, it does not merely fail to rule it out. Please
do not apply 1/3. 2/3 and 3/3 are independent of it and unaffected.
What I missed is why the old order was safe in the first place. It was
not an accident of ordering, it was load-bearing:
nouveau_fence_context_kill() signals every fence on fctx->pending,
and dma_fence_add_callback() returns -ENOENT for an already signalled
fence before it ever reaches __dma_fence_enable_signaling()
(drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c:707-710). So once the kill has run,
nouveau_fence_enable_signaling() is no longer reachable for those
fences, and nvif_event_dtor() afterwards has nobody left to race
with.
Moving the dtor to the front puts it exactly where those fences are
still live, so nvif_event_allow() can be in flight on another CPU with
nvif_event_constructed() already evaluated to true. There is nothing to
serialise the two: nouveau_fence_context_del() takes no lock at all,
enable_signaling() runs under fence->lock, which for nouveau is
fctx->lock (nouveau_fence.c:218-219), and the dtor cannot take that,
since the nvif ioctl may sleep and fctx->lock is taken with interrupts
off. The window is then held open for the whole of cancel_work_sync(),
which can block arbitrarily long.
So my patch traded a narrow re-arm window for a wider NULL-deref window.
That is a bad trade and my commit message argued for it with a "guard"
that is a plain unsynchronised read of object->client.
The re-arm problem the patch was aimed at is real, but the fix has to
keep the kill in front of the dtor. The obvious shape is to move the
drain to the back instead of the dtor to the front:
nouveau_fence_context_kill(fctx, 0);
nvif_event_dtor(&fctx->event);
cancel_work_sync(&fctx->uevent_work);
The kill closes enable_signaling(), the dtor then stops the handler, and
the drain last picks up anything the handler queued on its way out. I
want to convince myself properly that kill-before-drain is safe, rather
than send a second version tonight on the strength of it looking right,
so I will post a v2 once I have.
Thanks to the bot for catching this before anyone applied it. For what
it is worth, my own review pass had found the same mechanism a few hours
earlier and I mis-filed it as a wording problem in the commit message
instead of asking whether the patch itself was wrong. That one is on
me.
