On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:58:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2018-04-23 18:08, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:23:00AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> static int tda998x_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > >> { > >> - component_del(&client->dev, &tda998x_ops); > >> + struct device *dev = &client->dev; > >> + struct tda998x_bridge *bridge = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > >> + > >> + drm_bridge_remove(&bridge->bridge); > >> + component_del(dev, &tda998x_ops); > >> + > > > > I'd like to ask a rather fundamental question about DRM bridge support, > > because I suspect that there's a major fsckup here. > > > > The above is the function that deals with the TDA998x device being > > unbound from the driver. With the component API, this results in the > > DRM device correctly being torn down, because one of the hardware > > devices has gone. > > > > With DRM bridge, the bridge is merely removed from the list of > > bridges: > > > > void drm_bridge_remove(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > > { > > mutex_lock(&bridge_lock); > > list_del_init(&bridge->list); > > mutex_unlock(&bridge_lock); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_bridge_remove); > > > > and the memory backing the "struct tda998x_bridge" (which contains > > the struct drm_bridge) will be freed by the devm subsystem. > > > > However, there is no notification into the rest of the DRM subsystem > > that the device has gone away. Worse, the memory that is still in > > use by DRM has now been freed, so further use of the DRM device > > results in a use-after-free bug. > > > > This is really not good, and to me looks like a fundamental problem > > with the DRM bridge code. I see nothing in the DRM bridge code that > > deals with the lifetime of a "DRM bridge" or indeed the lifetime of > > the actual device itself. > > > > So, from what I can see, there seems to be a fundamental lifetime > > issue with the design of the DRM bridge code. This needs to be > > fixed. > > Oh crap. A gigantic can of worms...
Yes, it's especially annoying for me, having put the effort in to the component helper to cover all these cases. > Would a patch (completely untested btw) along this line of thinking make > any difference whatsoever? It looks interesting - from what I can see of the device links code, it would have the effect of unbinding the DRM device just before TDA998x is unbound, so that's an improvement. However, from what I can see, the link vanishes at that point (as DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE is set), and re-binding the TDA998x device results in nothing further happening - the link will be recreated, but there appears to be nothing that triggers the "consumer" to rebind at that point. Maybe I've missed something? -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel