On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:24:59PM +0800, jeffy wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 04/07/2017 03:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:31:25PM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote: > > > After unbinding drm, the user space may still owns the drm dev fd, > > > and may still be able to call drm ioctl. > > > > > > Add a sanity check here to prevent that from happening. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v5: None > > > Changes in v4: None > > > Changes in v3: None > > > Changes in v2: None > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > > > index 7d6deaa..15beb11 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c > > > @@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ long drm_ioctl(struct file *filp, > > > > > > dev = file_priv->minor->dev; > > > > > > - if (drm_device_is_unplugged(dev)) > > > + if (drm_device_is_unplugged(dev) || !dev->registered) > > > > Shouldn't we instead automatically unplug the device in > > drm_dev_unregister, instead of sprinkling tons of drm_device_is_unplugged > > || !registered all over the place? > > > it looks like the drm_unplug_dev would call drm_dev_unregister... > maybe we can: > 1/ replace the dev_unplug_dev in udl_drv.c to drm_dev_unregister > 2/ call dev_unplug_dev in drm_dev_unregister, and remove drm_dev_unregister > in dev_unplug_dev > 3/ add a drm_plug_dev or drm_device_set_plugged, and call it in > drm_dev_register Yeah, sounds like a reasonable plan. I didn't review the full implications of this because Fri evening :-) So pls double-check before you rewrite the world ... Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
