Hi Am 24.01.22 um 14:52 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
Hello Thomas, Thanks for the patch. On 1/24/22 13:36, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:Hot-unplug all firmware-framebuffer devices as part of removing them via remove_conflicting_framebuffers() et al. Releases all memory regions to be acquired by native drivers. Firmware, such as EFI, install a framebuffer while posting the computer. After removing the firmware-framebuffer device from fbdev, a native driver takes over the hardware and the firmware framebuffer becomes invalid. Firmware-framebuffer drivers, specifically simplefb, don't release their device from Linux' device hierarchy. It still owns the firmware framebuffer and blocks the native drivers from loading. This has been observed in the vmwgfx driver. [1] Initiating a device removal (i.e., hot unplug) as part of remove_conflicting_framebuffers() removes the underlying device and returns the memory range to the system. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20220117180359.18114-1-zack@xxxxxxx/I would add a Reported-by tag here for Zack.
Indeed, I simply forgot about it.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v5.11+ --- drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/fb.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c index 0fa7ede94fa6..f73f8415b8cb 100644 --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/linux_logo.h> #include <linux/proc_fs.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/seq_file.h> #include <linux/console.h> #include <linux/kmod.h> @@ -1557,18 +1558,36 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a, /* check all firmware fbs and kick off if the base addr overlaps */ for_each_registered_fb(i) { struct apertures_struct *gen_aper; + struct device *dev;if (!(registered_fb[i]->flags & FBINFO_MISC_FIRMWARE))continue;gen_aper = registered_fb[i]->apertures;+ dev = registered_fb[i]->device; if (fb_do_apertures_overlap(gen_aper, a) || (primary && gen_aper && gen_aper->count && gen_aper->ranges[0].base == VGA_FB_PHYS)) {printk(KERN_INFO "fb%d: switching to %s from %s\n",i, name, registered_fb[i]->fix.id); - do_unregister_framebuffer(registered_fb[i]); + + /* + * If we kick-out a firmware driver, we also want to remove + * the underlying platform device, such as simple-framebuffer, + * VESA, EFI, etc. A native driver will then be able to + * allocate the memory range. + * + * If it's not a platform device, at least print a warning. A + * fix would add code to remove the device from the system. + */ + if (dev_is_platform(dev)) {In do_register_framebuffer() creating the fb%d is not a fatal error. It would be safer to do if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev) && dev_is_platform(dev)) instead here. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c#L1605
'dev' here refers to 'fb_info->device', which is the underlying device created by the sysfb code. fb_info->dev is something different.
+ registered_fb[i]->forced_out = true; + platform_device_unregister(to_platform_device(dev)); + } else { + pr_warn("fb%d: cannot remove device\n", i); + do_unregister_framebuffer(registered_fb[i]); + } } } } @@ -1898,9 +1917,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_framebuffer); void unregister_framebuffer(struct fb_info *fb_info) { - mutex_lock(®istration_lock); + bool forced_out = fb_info->forced_out; + + if (!forced_out) + mutex_lock(®istration_lock); do_unregister_framebuffer(fb_info); - mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); + if (!forced_out) + mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); }I'm not sure to follow the logic here. The forced_out bool is set when the platform device is unregistered in do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(), but shouldn't the struct platform_driver .remove callback be executed even in this case ? That is, the platform_device_unregister() will trigger the call to the .remove callback that in turn will call unregister_framebuffer(). Shouldn't we always hold the mutex when calling do_unregister_framebuffer() ?
Doing the hot-unplug will end up in unregister_framebuffer(), but we already hold the lock from the do_remove_conflicting_framebuffer() code.
Best regards Thomas
Best regards,
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
