On 2018-04-24 10:08, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:58:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2018-04-23 18:08, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:23:00AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> static int tda998x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>>> {
>>>> - component_del(&client->dev, &tda998x_ops);
>>>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>>>> + struct tda998x_bridge *bridge = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + drm_bridge_remove(&bridge->bridge);
>>>> + component_del(dev, &tda998x_ops);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask a rather fundamental question about DRM bridge support,
>>> because I suspect that there's a major fsckup here.
>>>
>>> The above is the function that deals with the TDA998x device being
>>> unbound from the driver. With the component API, this results in the
>>> DRM device correctly being torn down, because one of the hardware
>>> devices has gone.
>>>
>>> With DRM bridge, the bridge is merely removed from the list of
>>> bridges:
>>>
>>> void drm_bridge_remove(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>>> {
>>> mutex_lock(&bridge_lock);
>>> list_del_init(&bridge->list);
>>> mutex_unlock(&bridge_lock);
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_bridge_remove);
>>>
>>> and the memory backing the "struct tda998x_bridge" (which contains
>>> the struct drm_bridge) will be freed by the devm subsystem.
>>>
>>> However, there is no notification into the rest of the DRM subsystem
>>> that the device has gone away. Worse, the memory that is still in
>>> use by DRM has now been freed, so further use of the DRM device
>>> results in a use-after-free bug.
>>>
>>> This is really not good, and to me looks like a fundamental problem
>>> with the DRM bridge code. I see nothing in the DRM bridge code that
>>> deals with the lifetime of a "DRM bridge" or indeed the lifetime of
>>> the actual device itself.
>>>
>>> So, from what I can see, there seems to be a fundamental lifetime
>>> issue with the design of the DRM bridge code. This needs to be
>>> fixed.
>>
>> Oh crap. A gigantic can of worms...
>
> Yes, it's especially annoying for me, having put the effort in to
> the component helper to cover all these cases.
>
>> Would a patch (completely untested btw) along this line of thinking make
>> any difference whatsoever?
>
> It looks interesting - from what I can see of the device links code,
> it would have the effect of unbinding the DRM device just before
> TDA998x is unbound, so that's an improvement.
>
> However, from what I can see, the link vanishes at that point (as
> DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE is set), and re-binding the TDA998x device results
> in nothing further happening - the link will be recreated, but there
> appears to be nothing that triggers the "consumer" to rebind at that
> point. Maybe I've missed something?
Right, auto-remove is a no-go. So, improving on the previous...
(I think drm_panel might suffer from this issue too?)
Cheers,
Peter
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
index 1638bfe9627c..b1365cfee445 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
@@ -121,12 +121,17 @@ int drm_bridge_attach(struct drm_encoder *encoder, struct drm_bridge *bridge,
if (bridge->dev)
return -EBUSY;
+ bridge->link = device_link_add(encoder->dev->dev, bridge->owner, 0);
+ if (!bridge->link)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
bridge->dev = encoder->dev;
bridge->encoder = encoder;
if (bridge->funcs->attach) {
ret = bridge->funcs->attach(bridge);
if (ret < 0) {
+ device_link_del(bridge->link);
bridge->dev = NULL;
bridge->encoder = NULL;
return ret;
@@ -153,6 +158,8 @@ void drm_bridge_detach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
if (bridge->funcs->detach)
bridge->funcs->detach(bridge);
+ device_link_del(bridge->link);
+
bridge->dev = NULL;
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
index b8cb6237a38b..29eba4e9a39d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
@@ -1857,6 +1857,7 @@ tda998x_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
bridge->dev = dev;
dev_set_drvdata(dev, bridge);
+ bridge->bridge.owner = dev;
bridge->bridge.funcs = &tda998x_bridge_funcs;
#ifdef CONFIG_OF
bridge->bridge.of_node = dev->of_node;
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_bridge.h b/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
index 682d01ba920c..b8f33aba3216 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
@@ -224,6 +224,8 @@ struct drm_bridge_funcs {
/**
* struct drm_bridge - central DRM bridge control structure
+ * @owner: device that owns the bridge
+ * @link: drm consumer <-> bridge supplier
* @dev: DRM device this bridge belongs to
* @encoder: encoder to which this bridge is connected
* @next: the next bridge in the encoder chain
@@ -233,6 +235,8 @@ struct drm_bridge_funcs {
* @driver_private: pointer to the bridge driver's internal context
*/
struct drm_bridge {
+ struct device *owner;
+ struct device_link *link;
struct drm_device *dev;
struct drm_encoder *encoder;
struct drm_bridge *next;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
