[PATCH v4] DRM: add DRM Driver for Samsung SoC EXYNOS4210.

Inki Dae inki.dae at samsung.com
Wed Sep 14 01:55:02 EDT 2011 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Clark [mailto:robdclark at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:26 AM
> To: Inki Dae
> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom; kyungmin.park at samsung.com; sw0312.kim at samsung.com;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] DRM: add DRM Driver for Samsung SoC EXYNOS4210.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae at samsung.com> wrote:
> > Hi Thomas.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thomas Hellstrom [mailto:thomas at shipmail.org]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:32 PM
> >> To: Rob Clark
> >> Cc: Inki Dae; kyungmin.park at samsung.com; sw0312.kim at samsung.com; linux-
> >> arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] DRM: add DRM Driver for Samsung SoC EXYNOS4210.
> >>
> >> On 09/11/2011 11:26 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >> > On 09/10/2011 07:31 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Thomas
> >> >> Hellstrom<thomas at shipmail.org>  wrote:
> >> >>> On 09/09/2011 01:38 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> >>>> This patch is a DRM Driver for Samsung SoC Exynos4210 and now
> enables
> >> >>>> only FIMD yet but we will add HDMI support also in the future.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> from now on, I will remove RFC prefix because I think we have got
> >> >>>> comments
> >> >>>> enough.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> this patch is based on git repository below:
> >> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/airlied/drm-2.6.git,
> >> >>>> branch name: drm-next
> >> >>>> commit-id: bcc65fd8e929a9d9d34d814d6efc1d2793546922
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> you can refer to our working repository below:
> >> >>>> http://git.infradead.org/users/kmpark/linux-2.6-samsung
> >> >>>> branch name: samsung-drm
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We tried to re-use lowlevel codes of the FIMD driver(s3c-fb.c
> >> >>>> based on Linux framebuffer) but couldn't so because lowlevel codes
> >> >>>> of s3c-fb.c are included internally and so FIMD module of this
> >> >>>> driver has
> >> >>>> its own lowlevel codes.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We used GEM framework for buffer management and DMA
> APIs(dma_alloc_*)
> >> >>>> for buffer allocation. by using DMA API, we could use CMA later.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Refer to this link for CMA(Continuous Memory Allocator):
> >> >>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/20/45
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> this driver supports only physically continuous memory(non-iommu).
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Links to previous versions of the patchset:
> >> >>>> v1:<    https://lwn.net/Articles/454380/>
> >> >>>> v2:<    http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1224275.html>
> >> >>>> v3:<    http://www.gossamer-
> threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1423684>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Changelog v2:
> >> >>>> DRM: add DRM_IOCTL_SAMSUNG_GEM_MMAP ioctl command.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      this feature maps user address space to physical memory
> region
> >> >>>>      once user application requests DRM_IOCTL_SAMSUNG_GEM_MMAP
> ioctl.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: code clean and add exception codes.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Changelog v3:
> >> >>>> DRM: Support multiple irq.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      FIMD and HDMI have their own irq handler but DRM Framework
> can
> >> >>>> regiter
> >> >>>>      only one irq handler this patch supports mutiple irq for
> >> >>>> Samsung SoC.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: Consider modularization.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      each DRM, FIMD could be built as a module.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: Have indenpendent crtc object.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      crtc isn't specific to SoC Platform so this patch gets a crtc
> >> >>>>      to be used as common object.
> >> >>>>      created crtc could be attached to any encoder object.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: code clean and add exception codes.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Changelog v4:
> >> >>>> DRM: remove is_defult from samsung_fb.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      is_default isn't used for default framebuffer.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: code refactoring to fimd module.
> >> >>>>      this patch is be considered with multiple display objects and
> >> >>>>      would use its own request_irq() to register a irq handler
> >> >>>> instead of
> >> >>>>      drm framework's one.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: remove find_samsung_drm_gem_object()
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: move kernel private data structures and definitions to driver
> >> >>>> folder.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      samsung_drm.h would contain only public information for
> > userspace
> >> >>>>      ioctl interface.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: code refactoring to gem modules.
> >> >>>>      buffer module isn't dependent of gem module anymore.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: fixed security issue.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: remove encoder porinter from specific connector.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>      samsung connector doesn't need to have generic encoder.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> DRM: code clean and add exception codes.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Inki Dae<inki.dae at samsung.com>
> >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim<jy0922.shim at samsung.com>
> >> >>>> Signed-off-by: SeungWoo Kim<sw0312.kim at samsung.com>
> >> >>>> Signed-off-by: kyungmin.park<kyungmin.park at samsung.com>
> >> >>>> ---
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> +static struct drm_ioctl_desc samsung_ioctls[] = {
> >> >>>> +       DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(SAMSUNG_GEM_CREATE,
> >> >>>> samsung_drm_gem_create_ioctl,
> >> >>>> +                       DRM_UNLOCKED | DRM_AUTH),
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> Hi!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> With reference my previous security comment.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Let's say you have a compromised video player running as a DRM
> >> >>> client, that
> >> >>> tries to repeatedly allocate huge GEM buffers...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What will happen when all DMA memory is exhausted? Will this cause
> >> >>> other
> >> >>> device drivers to see an OOM, or only DRM?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The old DRI model basically allowed any authorized DRI client to
> >> >>> exhaust
> >> >>> video ram or AGP memory, but never system memory. Newer DRI drivers
> >> >>> typically only allow DRI masters to do that.
> >> >>> as
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't think an authorized DRI client should be able to easily
> >> exhaust
> >> >>> resources (DMA memory) used by other device drivers causing them to
> >> >>> fail.
> >> >> I'm not entirely sure what else can be done, other than have a
> >> >> threshold on max MB allocatable of buffer memory..
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I think that's what needs to be done, and that threshold should
> >> > be low enough to keep other device drivers running in the worst
> >> > allocation case.
> >> >
> >> >> In the samsung driver case, he is only allocating scanout memory
> from
> >> >> CMA, so the limit will be the CMA region size.. beyond that you
> can't
> >> >> get physically contiguous memory.  So I think this driver is safe.
> >> >
> >> > It's not really what well-behaved user-space drivers do that should
> be
> >> > a concern, but what compromized application *might* do that is a
> > concern.
> >>
> >> Hmm. I might have missed your point here. If the buffer allocation
> ioctl
> >> only allows allocating CMA memory, then I agree the driver fits the old
> >> DRI security model, as long as no other devices on the platform will
> >> ever use CMA.
> >>
> >> But in that case, there really should be a way for the driver to say
> >> "Hey, all CMA memory on this system is mine", in the same way
> >> traditional video drivers can claim the VRAM PCI resource.
> >>
> >
> > CMA could reserve memory region for a specific driver so DRM Client
> could
> > request memory allocation from only the region.
> >
> >> This is to avoid the possibility that future drivers that need CMA will
> >> be vulnerable to DOS-attacks from ill-behaved DRI clients.
> >>
> >
> > Thomas, if any application has root authority for ill-purpose then isn't
> it
> > possible to be vulnerable to DOS-attacks? I think DRM_AUTH means root
> > authority. I know DRM Framework gives any root application DRM_AUTH
> > authority for compatibility.
> 
> DRM_AUTH just means that the client has authenticated w/ X11 (meaning
> that it has permission to connect to x server)..
> 

Yes, I understood so. but see drm_open_helper() of drm_fops.c file please.
in this function, you can see a line below.
/* for compatibility root is always authenticated */
priv->authenticated = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)

I think the code above says that any application with root permission is
authenticated.


> But I think that since memory allocation is limited to the size of the
> CMA region, that this puts a reasonable cap of the memory that can be
> allocated by the client.  If this is a problem, it certainly isn't the
> worst problem.  You could still limit via file permissions the users
> that can open the DRM device file, so it is really no worse than other
> devices like v4l2..
> 
> BR,
> -R
> 
> 
> >> /Thomas
> >>
> >
> >
> >

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list