On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:13:28PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31-05-17 04:39, jeffy wrote:
> >Hi Hans,
> >
> >thanx for investigating :)
> >
> >On 05/30/2017 03:06 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>On 29-05-17 22:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:15:04AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> >>>>On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:32:44PM +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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We're using an unplugged state to prevent something like that, so let's
> >>>>>reuse it here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Also drop drm_unplug_dev, because it would be unused after other
> >>>>>changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Verified on rk3399 chromebook kevin(with cros 4.4 kernel), no more
> >>>>>crashes
> >>>>>when unbinding drm with ui service still running.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>v2: Fix some commit messages.
> >>>>>v3: Reuse unplug status.
> >>>>>v4: Add drm_device_set_plug_state helper.
> >>>>>v5: Fix hang when unregistering drm dev with open_count 0.
> >>>>>v6: Move drm_device_set_plug_state into drm_drv.
> >>>>>v7: Add missing drm_dev_unref in udl_drv.
> >>>>>v8: Fix compiler errors after enable udl.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>---
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi Jeffy,
> >>>>Given the trouble we've had with this patch already, coupled with the
> >>>>fact that
> >>>>unbinding while userspace is active is a contrived/pathological case,
> >>>>I don't
> >>>>think it's worth picking this patch upstream.
> >>>>
> >>>>If it's really causing issues downstream, you can add my Reviewed-by
> >>>>for a CHROMIUM
> >>>>patch, but I'd rather not carry patches in the CrOS repo if we don't
> >>>>need to.
> >>>
> >>>Would a
> >>>
> >>>Fixes: a39be606f99d ("drm: Do a full device unregister when unplugging")
> >>>Reported-by: Marco Diego Aurélio Mesquita <marcodiegomesquita@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>convince us to look into this patch again?
> >>
> >>The problem is this patch is wrong, see below.
> >>
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 26 ++++++++++----------------
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.c | 3 ++-
> >>>>> include/drm/drmP.h | 6 ------
> >>>>> include/drm/drm_drv.h | 1 -
> >>>>> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> >>>>>index b5c6bb4..e1da4d1 100644
> >>>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> >>>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> >>>>>@@ -355,22 +355,6 @@ void drm_put_dev(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_put_dev);
> >>>>>-void drm_unplug_dev(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>>-{
> >>>>>- /* for a USB device */
> >>>>>- drm_dev_unregister(dev);
> >>>>>-
> >>>>>- mutex_lock(&drm_global_mutex);
> >>>>>-
> >>>>>- drm_device_set_unplugged(dev);
> >>>>>-
> >>>>>- if (dev->open_count == 0) {
> >>>>>- drm_put_dev(dev);
> >>>>>- }
> >>>>>- mutex_unlock(&drm_global_mutex);
> >>>>>-}
> >>>>>-EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_unplug_dev);
> >>>>>-
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * DRM internal mount
> >>>>> * We want to be able to allocate our own "struct address_space"
> >>>>>to control
> >>>>>@@ -733,6 +717,13 @@ static void remove_compat_control_link(struct
> >>>>>drm_device *dev)
> >>>>> kfree(name);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>+static inline void drm_device_set_plug_state(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>+ bool plugged)
> >>>>>+{
> >>>>>+ smp_wmb();
> >>>>>+ atomic_set(&dev->unplugged, !plugged);
> >>>>>+}
> >>>>>+
> >>>>> /**
> >>>>> * drm_dev_register - Register DRM device
> >>>>> * @dev: Device to register
> >>>>>@@ -787,6 +778,8 @@ int drm_dev_register(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>unsigned long flags)
> >>>>> if (drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
> >>>>> drm_modeset_register_all(dev);
> >>>>>+ drm_device_set_plug_state(dev, true);
> >>>>>+
> >>>>> ret = 0;
> >>>>> DRM_INFO("Initialized %s %d.%d.%d %s for %s on minor %d\n",
> >>>>>@@ -826,6 +819,7 @@ void drm_dev_unregister(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>> drm_lastclose(dev);
> >>>>> dev->registered = false;
> >>>>>+ drm_device_set_plug_state(dev, false);
> >>>>> if (drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
> >>>>> drm_modeset_unregister_all(dev);
> >>>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.c
> >>>>>b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.c
> >>>>>index cd8b017..fc73e24 100644
> >>>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.c
> >>>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.c
> >>>>>@@ -108,7 +108,8 @@ static void udl_usb_disconnect(struct
> >>>>>usb_interface *interface)
> >>>>> drm_kms_helper_poll_disable(dev);
> >>>>> udl_fbdev_unplug(dev);
> >>>>> udl_drop_usb(dev);
> >>>>>- drm_unplug_dev(dev);
> >>>>>+ drm_dev_unregister(dev);
> >>>>>+ drm_dev_unref(dev);
> >>
> >>The unref here will cause the device struct to get free-ed even if
> >>userspace still holds references to it through the drm_dev. To fix
> >>this we would need to call drm_dev_ref on a open from userspace and
> >>drm_dev_unref from drm_release.
> >
> >right, but i think we are already did the ref/unref in the open/release through drm_minor_acquire/drm_minor_release.
>
> Ah yes, I see. Still calling drm_dev_unregister() directly from
> udl_usb_disconnect() is not going to work, see the patch titled
> "drm: Fix oops + Xserver hang when unplugging USB drm devices"
>
> The problem is that drm_dev_unregister() probably should be
> split into a drm_dev_unregister() and drm_dev_cleanup()
> function with the cleanup part getting called by the last unref,
> and at least calling drm_lastclose and the driver->unload call
> needs to be moved to the new drm_dev_cleanup.
It already is. driver->unload() has been deprecated for a while, in
spirit at least, we probably should add a warning to it, and is
not meant to be used anymore.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
