Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon,  3 Feb 2020 10:18:27 -0600
From: Tianlin Li <>
	Alex Deucher <>,,,
	David Airlie <>,
	Daniel Vetter <>,,,,
	Tianlin Li <>
Subject: [PATCH v2] drm/radeon: have the callers of set_memory_*() check the return value

Right now several architectures allow their set_memory_*() family of  
functions to fail, but callers may not be checking the return values.
If set_memory_*() returns with an error, call-site assumptions may be
infact wrong to assume that it would either succeed or not succeed at  
all. Ideally, the failure of set_memory_*() should be passed up the 
call stack, and callers should examine the failure and deal with it. 

Need to fix the callers and add the __must_check attribute. They also 
may not provide any level of atomicity, in the sense that the memory 
protections may be left incomplete on failure. This issue likely has a 
few steps on effects architectures:
1)Have all callers of set_memory_*() helpers check the return value.
2)Add __must_check to all set_memory_*() helpers so that new uses do  
not ignore the return value.
3)Add atomicity to the calls so that the memory protections aren't left 
in a partial state.

This series is part of step 1. Make drm/radeon check the return value of  

Signed-off-by: Tianlin Li <>
The hardware is too old to be tested on and the code cannot be simply
removed from the kernel, so this is the solution for the short term. 
- Just print an error when something goes wrong
- Remove patch 2.  
 drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gart.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gart.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gart.c
index f178ba321715..a2cc864aa08d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gart.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gart.c
@@ -80,8 +80,9 @@ int radeon_gart_table_ram_alloc(struct radeon_device *rdev)
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86
 	if (rdev->family == CHIP_RS400 || rdev->family == CHIP_RS480 ||
 	    rdev->family == CHIP_RS690 || rdev->family == CHIP_RS740) {
-		set_memory_uc((unsigned long)ptr,
-			      rdev->gart.table_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+		if (set_memory_uc((unsigned long)ptr,
+			      rdev->gart.table_size >> PAGE_SHIFT))
+			DRM_ERROR("set_memory_uc failed.\n");
 	rdev->gart.ptr = ptr;
@@ -106,8 +107,9 @@ void radeon_gart_table_ram_free(struct radeon_device *rdev)
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86
 	if (rdev->family == CHIP_RS400 || rdev->family == CHIP_RS480 ||
 	    rdev->family == CHIP_RS690 || rdev->family == CHIP_RS740) {
-		set_memory_wb((unsigned long)rdev->gart.ptr,
-			      rdev->gart.table_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+		if (set_memory_wb((unsigned long)rdev->gart.ptr,
+			      rdev->gart.table_size >> PAGE_SHIFT))
+			DRM_ERROR("set_memory_wb failed.\n");
 	pci_free_consistent(rdev->pdev, rdev->gart.table_size,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.