Message ID | 20220406213919.600294-1-javierm@redhat.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Fix some race conditions that exists between fbmem and sysfb | expand |
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 11:39:17PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Drivers that want to remove registered conflicting framebuffers prior to > register their own framebuffer, calls remove_conflicting_framebuffers(). > > This function takes the registration_lock mutex, to prevent a races when > drivers register framebuffer devices. But if a conflicting framebuffer > device is found, the underlaying platform device is unregistered and this > will lead to the platform driver .remove callback to be called, which in > turn will call to the unregister_framebuffer() that takes the same lock. > > To prevent this, a struct fb_info.forced_out field was used as indication > to unregister_framebuffer() whether the mutex has to be grabbed or not. > > A cleaner solution is to drop the lock before platform_device_unregister() > so unregister_framebuffer() can take it when called from the fbdev driver, > and just grab the lock again after the device has been registered and do > a removal loop restart. > > Since the framebuffer devices will already be removed, the loop would just > finish when no more conflicting framebuffers are found. > > Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> It's always entertaining with these things since they can go boom in funny ways, but need to a least try :-) Recursive locks are just a bit too evil. Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > --- > > drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------- > include/linux/fb.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c > index b585339509b0..c1bfb8df9cba 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c > @@ -1555,6 +1555,7 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a, > { > int i; > > +restart_removal: > /* check all firmware fbs and kick off if the base addr overlaps */ > for_each_registered_fb(i) { > struct apertures_struct *gen_aper; > @@ -1582,8 +1583,18 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a, > * fix would add code to remove the device from the system. > */ > if (dev_is_platform(device)) { > - registered_fb[i]->forced_out = true; > + /* > + * Drop the lock since the driver will call to the > + * unregister_framebuffer() function that takes it. > + */ > + mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); > platform_device_unregister(to_platform_device(device)); > + mutex_lock(®istration_lock); > + /* > + * Restart the removal now that the platform device > + * has been unregistered and its associated fb gone. > + */ > + goto restart_removal; > } else { > pr_warn("fb%d: cannot remove device\n", i); > do_unregister_framebuffer(registered_fb[i]); > @@ -1917,13 +1928,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_framebuffer); > void > unregister_framebuffer(struct fb_info *fb_info) > { > - bool forced_out = fb_info->forced_out; > - > - if (!forced_out) > - mutex_lock(®istration_lock); > + mutex_lock(®istration_lock); > do_unregister_framebuffer(fb_info); > - if (!forced_out) > - mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); > + mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_framebuffer); > > diff --git a/include/linux/fb.h b/include/linux/fb.h > index 39baa9a70779..f1e0cd751b06 100644 > --- a/include/linux/fb.h > +++ b/include/linux/fb.h > @@ -503,7 +503,6 @@ struct fb_info { > } *apertures; > > bool skip_vt_switch; /* no VT switch on suspend/resume required */ > - bool forced_out; /* set when being removed by another driver */ > }; > > static inline struct apertures_struct *alloc_apertures(unsigned int max_num) { > -- > 2.35.1 >
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 11:39:18PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > The platform devices registered in sysfb match with a firmware-based fbdev > or DRM driver, that are used to have early graphics using framebuffers set > up by the system firmware. > > Real DRM drivers later are probed and remove all conflicting framebuffers, > leading to these platform devices for generic drivers to be unregistered. > > But the current solution has two issues that this patch fixes: > > 1) It is a layering violation for the fbdev core to unregister a device > that was registered by sysfb. > > Instead, the sysfb_try_unregister() helper function can be called for > sysfb to attempt unregistering the device if is the one registered. > > 2) The sysfb_init() function could be called after a DRM driver is probed > and requested to unregister devices for drivers with a conflicting fb. > > To prevent this, disable any future sysfb platform device registration > by calling sysfb_disable(), if a driver requested to remove conflicting > framebuffers with remove_conflicting_framebuffers(). > > Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> > --- > > drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c > index c1bfb8df9cba..acf641b05d11 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/major.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > +#include <linux/sysfb.h> > #include <linux/mm.h> > #include <linux/mman.h> > #include <linux/vt.h> > @@ -1588,7 +1589,10 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a, > * unregister_framebuffer() function that takes it. > */ > mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); > - platform_device_unregister(to_platform_device(device)); > + if (!sysfb_try_unregister(device)) { > + /* sysfb didn't register this device, unregister it */ Maybe explain in the commit message that this is still needed for drivers which set up their platform_dev themselves, like vga16fb. Also I'm not sure we want to have an assumption encoded in fbmem.c here that the sysfb device is always a platform device. I think it would be better to call sysfb_try_unregister on any device, and then fall back to the forced removal on our own if it's a platform device. Also maybe change the comment to /* FIXME: Not all platform fb drivers use sysfb yet */ > + platform_device_unregister(to_platform_device(device)); > + } > mutex_lock(®istration_lock); > /* > * Restart the removal now that the platform device > @@ -1781,6 +1785,17 @@ int remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a, > do_free = true; > } > > + /* > + * If a driver asked to unregister a platform device registered by > + * sysfb, then can be assumed that this is a driver for a display > + * that is set up by the system firmware and has a generic driver. > + * > + * Drivers for devices that don't have a generic driver will never > + * ask for this, so let's assume that a real driver for the display > + * was already probed and prevent sysfb to register devices later. > + */ Yeah it's disappointing, but no worse than the piles of hacks we have now. With the bikesheds addressed above: Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > + sysfb_disable(); > + > mutex_lock(®istration_lock); > do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(a, name, primary); > mutex_unlock(®istration_lock); > -- > 2.35.1 >
On 4/7/22 11:11, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 11:39:18PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: [snip] > > Yeah it's disappointing, but no worse than the piles of hacks we have now. > > With the bikesheds addressed above: > Agree with all your comments and will address in the next version. > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Thanks for reviewing these patches so quickly!