| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180514162828.GE28661@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 18:28:28 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...labora.com>,
Martin Donnelly <martin.donnelly@...com>,
Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.co.uk>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
CK Hu <ck.hu@...iatek.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@...com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 26/26] drm/bridge: establish a link between the bridge
supplier and consumer
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:37:47AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-05-10 10:10, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 04.05.2018 15:52, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> If the bridge supplier is unbound, this will bring the bridge consumer
> >> down along with the bridge. Thus, there will no longer linger any
> >> dangling pointers from the bridge consumer (the drm_device) to some
> >> non-existent bridge supplier.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/drm/drm_bridge.h | 2 ++
> >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> >> index 78d186b6831b..0259f0a3ff27 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> >> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >>
> >> #include <drm/drm_bridge.h>
> >> +#include <drm/drm_device.h>
> >> #include <drm/drm_encoder.h>
> >>
> >> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h"
> >> @@ -127,12 +128,25 @@ int drm_bridge_attach(struct drm_encoder *encoder, struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> >> if (bridge->dev)
> >> return -EBUSY;
> >>
> >> + if (encoder->dev->dev != bridge->odev) {
> >
> > I wonder why device_link_add does not handle this case (self dependency)
> > silently as noop, as it seems to be a correct behavior.
>
> It's kind-of a silly corner-case though, so perfectly understandable
> that it isn't handled.
>
> >> + bridge->link = device_link_add(encoder->dev->dev,
> >> + bridge->odev, 0);
> >> + if (!bridge->link) {
> >> + dev_err(bridge->odev, "failed to link bridge to %s\n",
> >> + dev_name(encoder->dev->dev));
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> bridge->dev = encoder->dev;
> >> bridge->encoder = encoder;
> >>
> >> if (bridge->funcs->attach) {
> >> ret = bridge->funcs->attach(bridge);
> >> if (ret < 0) {
> >> + if (bridge->link)
> >> + device_link_del(bridge->link);
> >> + bridge->link = NULL;
> >> bridge->dev = NULL;
> >> bridge->encoder = NULL;
> >> return ret;
> >> @@ -159,6 +173,10 @@ void drm_bridge_detach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> >> if (bridge->funcs->detach)
> >> bridge->funcs->detach(bridge);
> >>
> >> + if (bridge->link)
> >> + device_link_del(bridge->link);
> >> + bridge->link = NULL;
> >> +
> >> bridge->dev = NULL;
> >> }
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_bridge.h b/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
> >> index b656e505d11e..804189c63a4c 100644
> >> --- a/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
> >> +++ b/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
> >> @@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ struct drm_bridge_timings {
> >> * @list: to keep track of all added bridges
> >> * @timings: the timing specification for the bridge, if any (may
> >> * be NULL)
> >> + * @link: drm consumer <-> bridge supplier
> >
> > Nitpick: "<->" suggests symmetry, maybe "device link from drm consumer
> > to the bridge" would be better.
>
> I meant "<->" to indicate that the link is bidirectional, not that the
> relationship is in any way symmetric. I wasn't aware of any implication
> of a symmetric relationship when using "<->", do you have a reference?
> But I guess the different arrow notations in math are somewhat overloaded
> and that someone at some point must have used "<->" to indicate a
> symmetric relationship...
Yeah I agree with Andrzej here, for me <-> implies a symmetric
relationship. Spelling it out like Andrzej suggested sounds like the
better idea.
-Daniel
>
> > Anyway:
> > Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> > --
> > Regards
> > Andrzej
> >
> >> * @funcs: control functions
> >> * @driver_private: pointer to the bridge driver's internal context
> >> */
> >> @@ -271,6 +272,7 @@ struct drm_bridge {
> >> struct drm_bridge *next;
> >> struct list_head list;
> >> const struct drm_bridge_timings *timings;
> >> + struct device_link *link;
> >>
> >> const struct drm_bridge_funcs *funcs;
> >> void *driver_private;
> >
> >
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists