[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9520bcb5-df81-452c-902a-0c4c61156716@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 15:12:11 +0200
From: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Jyri Sarha <jyri.sarha@....fi>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>,
Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/29] drm/atomic_state_helper: Fix bridge state
initialization
Hi
Am 15.09.25 um 13:27 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 03:18:17PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 02.09.25 um 10:32 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
>>> Bridges implement their state using a drm_private_obj and an
>>> hand-crafted reset implementation.
>>>
>>> Since drm_private_obj doesn't have a set of reset helper like the other
>>> states, __drm_atomic_helper_bridge_reset() was initializing both the
>>> drm_private_state and the drm_bridge_state structures.
>>>
>>> This initialization however was missing the drm_private_state.obj
>>> pointer to the drm_private_obj the state was allocated for, creating a
>>> NULL pointer dereference when trying to access it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 751465913f04 ("drm/bridge: Add a drm_bridge_state object")
>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c | 8 ++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c
>>> index 7142e163e618ea0d7d9d828e1bd9ff2a6ec0dfeb..b962c342b16aabf4e3bea52a914e5deb1c2080ce 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c
>>> @@ -707,10 +707,17 @@ void drm_atomic_helper_connector_destroy_state(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>> __drm_atomic_helper_connector_destroy_state(state);
>>> kfree(state);
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_atomic_helper_connector_destroy_state);
>>> +static void __drm_atomic_helper_private_obj_reset(struct drm_private_obj *obj,
>>> + struct drm_private_state *state)
>>> +{
>>> + memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
>> This argument is guaranteed to be zero'd, I think. No need for a memset.
>>
>>> + state->obj = obj;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * __drm_atomic_helper_private_obj_duplicate_state - copy atomic private state
>>> * @obj: CRTC object
>>> * @state: new private object state
>>> *
>>> @@ -796,10 +803,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_atomic_helper_bridge_destroy_state);
>>> */
>>> void __drm_atomic_helper_bridge_reset(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>>> struct drm_bridge_state *state)
>>> {
>>> memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
>> Another unnecessary memset?
> I guess the two can be seen as redundant, but I'd argue the one in
> __drm_atomic_helper_private_obj_reset should still be there.
>
> What guarantees that the pointer points to a zero'd structure?
We only call this helper after allocation AFAICT. And the DRM APIs
already assume that allocation clears to zero.
Best regards
Thomas
>
> Maxime
--
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists