dma-buf: drop the DAG approach for the dma_resv object v3

So far we had the approach of using a directed acyclic
graph with the dma_resv obj.

This turned out to have many downsides, especially it means
that every single driver and user of this interface needs
to be aware of this restriction when adding fences. If the
rules for the DAG are not followed then we end up with
potential hard to debug memory corruption, information
leaks or even elephant big security holes because we allow
userspace to access freed up memory.

Since we already took a step back from that by always
looking at all fences we now go a step further and stop
dropping the shared fences when a new exclusive one is
added.

v2: Drop some now superflous documentation
v3: Add some more documentation for the new handling.

Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20220321135856.1331-11-christian.koenig@amd.com

3 files changed, 7 insertions, 35 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
index 5001e9b4420a..be65522f0f47 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
@@ -351,35 +351,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_resv_replace_fences);
  * @fence: the exclusive fence to add
  *
  * Add a fence to the exclusive slot. @obj must be locked with dma_resv_lock().
- * Note that this function replaces all fences attached to @obj, see also
- * &dma_resv.fence_excl for a discussion of the semantics.
+ * See also &dma_resv.fence_excl for a discussion of the semantics.
  */
 void dma_resv_add_excl_fence(struct dma_resv *obj, struct dma_fence *fence)
 {
 	struct dma_fence *old_fence = dma_resv_excl_fence(obj);
-	struct dma_resv_list *old;
-	u32 i = 0;
 
 	dma_resv_assert_held(obj);
 
-	old = dma_resv_shared_list(obj);
-	if (old)
-		i = old->shared_count;
-
 	dma_fence_get(fence);
 
 	write_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
 	/* write_seqcount_begin provides the necessary memory barrier */
 	RCU_INIT_POINTER(obj->fence_excl, fence);
-	if (old)
-		old->shared_count = 0;
 	write_seqcount_end(&obj->seq);
 
-	/* inplace update, no shared fences */
-	while (i--)
-		dma_fence_put(rcu_dereference_protected(old->shared[i],
-						dma_resv_held(obj)));
-
 	dma_fence_put(old_fence);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_resv_add_excl_fence);
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
index 7ab50076e7a6..85ab5554425e 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
@@ -424,9 +424,7 @@ struct dma_buf {
 	 * IMPORTANT:
 	 *
 	 * All drivers must obey the struct dma_resv rules, specifically the
-	 * rules for updating fences, see &dma_resv.fence_excl and
-	 * &dma_resv.fence. If these dependency rules are broken access tracking
-	 * can be lost resulting in use after free issues.
+	 * rules for updating and obeying fences.
 	 */
 	struct dma_resv *resv;
 
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-resv.h b/include/linux/dma-resv.h
index 202cc65d0621..dccaf7b1663e 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-resv.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-resv.h
@@ -93,23 +93,11 @@ struct dma_resv {
 	 *
 	 * The exclusive fence, if there is one currently.
 	 *
-	 * There are two ways to update this fence:
-	 *
-	 * - First by calling dma_resv_add_excl_fence(), which replaces all
-	 *   fences attached to the reservation object. To guarantee that no
-	 *   fences are lost, this new fence must signal only after all previous
-	 *   fences, both shared and exclusive, have signalled. In some cases it
-	 *   is convenient to achieve that by attaching a struct dma_fence_array
-	 *   with all the new and old fences.
-	 *
-	 * - Alternatively the fence can be set directly, which leaves the
-	 *   shared fences unchanged. To guarantee that no fences are lost, this
-	 *   new fence must signal only after the previous exclusive fence has
-	 *   signalled. Since the shared fences are staying intact, it is not
-	 *   necessary to maintain any ordering against those. If semantically
-	 *   only a new access is added without actually treating the previous
-	 *   one as a dependency the exclusive fences can be strung together
-	 *   using struct dma_fence_chain.
+	 * To guarantee that no fences are lost, this new fence must signal
+	 * only after the previous exclusive fence has signalled. If
+	 * semantically only a new access is added without actually treating the
+	 * previous one as a dependency the exclusive fences can be strung
+	 * together using struct dma_fence_chain.
 	 *
 	 * Note that actual semantics of what an exclusive or shared fence mean
 	 * is defined by the user, for reservation objects shared across drivers