linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH 01/15] drm/armada: Call drm_atomic_helper

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

Message-ID: <wi2j43vzk3t55xc6ylvbekxqybnc62fqpx7v277d5htcqxrtxf@qya4mbky2y7l>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2023 09:36:10 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, airlied@...il.com,
        daniel@...ll.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH 01/15] drm/armada: Call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown()
 at shutdown time

On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 04:53:42PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 04:41:12PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > Based on grepping through the source code this driver appears to be
> > missing a call to drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() at system shutdown
> > time. Among other things, this means that if a panel is in use that it
> > won't be cleanly powered off at system shutdown time.
> > 
> > The fact that we should call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() in the case
> > of OS shutdown/restart comes straight out of the kernel doc "driver
> > instance overview" in drm_drv.c.
> > 
> > This driver was fairly easy to update. The drm_device is stored in the
> > drvdata so we just have to make sure the drvdata is NULL whenever the
> > device is not bound.
> 
> ... and there I think you have a misunderstanding of the driver model.
> Please have a look at device_unbind_cleanup() which will be called if
> probe fails, or when the device is removed (in other words, when it is
> not bound to a driver.)
> 
> Also, devices which aren't bound to a driver won't have their shutdown
> method called (because there is no driver currently bound to that
> device.) So, ->probe must have completed successfully, and ->remove
> must not have been called for that device.
> 
> So, I think that all these dev_set_drvdata(dev, NULL) that you're
> adding are just asking for a kernel janitor to come along later and
> remove them because they serve no purpose... so best not introduce
> them in the first place.

What would that hypothetical janitor clean up exactly? Code making sure
that there's no dangling pointer? Doesn't look very wise to me.

Maxime