linux-kernel - Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 4/4] drm/qxl: add drm

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:00:25 +0100
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@...hat.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <spice-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 4/4] drm/qxl: add drm_driver.release
 callback.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 07:09:20AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > 
> > Move final cleanups to qxl_drm_release() callback.
> 
> Can you explain in the commit why this is better or preferable?

It gets called when the drm device refcount goes down to zero.
It's needed for a proper cleanup in the correct order.

> > Add drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() call to qxl_pci_remove().
> 
> I suppose this is to replace the former manual cleanup calls,
> which were moved to qxl_drm_release, I think this could be
> added in the commit message ("why"), I don't see much value
> in describing "how" this was done.

The call is part of the shutdown sequence for atomic drm drivers
and wasn't present in qxl for some reason.

> > Reorder calls in qxl_device_fini().  Cleaning up gem & ttm
> > might trigger qxl commands, so we should do that before
> > releaseing command rings.
> 
> Typo: releaseing -> releasing
> Why not putting this in a separate commit? Was this behaviour
> changed? It does not seem so to me.

Yes, I can make that a separate commit.

No, behavior didn't change.  qxl_device_fini() is simply broken
without this.

cheers,
  Gerd