lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] drm: add lockdep assert to drm_is_current_master_locked
From
Date
On 30/7/21 2:08 pm, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:15:15PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
>> In drm_is_current_master_locked, accessing drm_file.master should be
>> protected by either drm_file.master_lookup_lock or
>> drm_device.master_mutex. This was previously awkward to assert with
>> lockdep.
>>
>> Following patch ("locking/lockdep: Provide lockdep_assert{,_once}()
>> helpers"), this assertion is now convenient so we add it in.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
>> index 9c24b8cc8e36..6f4d7ff23c80 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
>> @@ -63,9 +63,9 @@
>>
>> static bool drm_is_current_master_locked(struct drm_file *fpriv)
>> {
>> - /* Either drm_device.master_mutex or drm_file.master_lookup_lock
>> - * should be held here.
>> - */
>> + lockdep_assert_once(lockdep_is_held(&fpriv->master_lookup_lock) ||
>> + lockdep_is_held(&fpriv->minor->dev->master_mutex));
>> +
>
> I think it's better to also add the lockdep_assert() of & (i.e. both
> held) in the updater side, and have comments pointing to each other.
>
> Is it convenient to do in this patchset? If the updater side doesn't
> need to put the lockdep_assert() (maybe the lock acquire code and the
> update code are in the same function), it's still better to add some

Thanks for the feedback, Boqun.

Yeah, I think the updater side maybe doesn't need new lockdep_assert()
because what currently happens is either

lockdep_assert_held_once(&dev->master_mutex);
/* 6 lines of prep */
spin_lock(&fpriv->master_lookup_lock);
fpriv->master = new_value;
or
mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex);
/* 3 lines of checks */
spin_lock(&file_priv->master_lookup_lock);
file_priv->master = new_value;

> comments like:
>
> /*
> * To update drm_file.master, both drm_file.master_lookup_lock
> * and drm_device.master_mutex are needed, therefore holding
> * either of them is safe and enough for the read side.
> */
>
> Just feel it's better to explain the lock design either in the
> lockdep_assert() or comments.
>

But clarifying the lock design in the documentation sounds like a really
good idea.

Probably a good place for this would be in the kerneldoc where we also
explain the lifetime rules and usage of the pointer outside drm_auth.c:

diff --git a/include/drm/drm_file.h b/include/drm/drm_file.h
index 726cfe0ff5f5..a3acb7ac3550 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
@@ -233,6 +233,10 @@ struct drm_file {
* this only matches &drm_device.master if the master is the currently
* active one.
*
+ * To update @master, both &drm_device.master_mutex and
+ * @master_lookup_lock need to be held, therefore holding either of
+ * them is safe and enough for the read side.
+ *
* When dereferencing this pointer, either hold struct
* &drm_device.master_mutex for the duration of the pointer's use, or
* use drm_file_get_master() if struct &drm_device.master_mutex is not
Best wishes,
Desmond

> Regards,
> Boqun
>
>> return fpriv->is_master && drm_lease_owner(fpriv->master) == fpriv->minor->dev->master;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-30 10:07    [W:0.056 / U:2.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site