[PATCH] drm/dp: look up the mstb passed into work function

Dave Airlie airlied at gmail.com
Sun Jun 21 21:28:33 PDT 2015

On 20 June 2015 at 01:42, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:53:10AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> From: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
>> We should validate the passed in mstb under the lock
>> this should stop us getting an invalid mstb here.
>> (first attempt with cancelling work has lockdep issues).
> Yeah cancel_work_sync is nasty that way ;-)
> Btw random bikeshed, but mgr->work would look nice as mgr->probe_work.
>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89366
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45369
> seems the more accurate one, the fdo one is a mess.

yes probably.

> I am a bit concerned about the lifetime rules of the mgr->mst_primary
> pointer. port->mstb is controlled by the lifetime of the port and that by
> the parent mst branch, so I think we're covered dereferencing that one.
> But mgr->mst_primary seems to be protected only by mgr->lock, and you're
> not holding that in the probe work. I did review
> drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst and that does seem to clean up
> ->mst_primary correctly but might be helped with a comment. But we do need
> the locking I think.

That won't work as we take the lock to do the lookups later,

It doesn't actually matter if mgr->mst_primary gets messed up here I
don't think,
as long as we validate it. So the value is going to be either a)
correct, b) NULL,
c) garbage between a and b assuming its not atomic, the validate function
locks the mgr, and checks primary, at this point primary will either be a or b
as we hold the lock, and if primary from outside the function is a, b or c won't
matter as the validation will either pass or fail depending on the
state under the

Though in reviewing that I did find another bug with primary which
I'll send another fix for.


More information about the dri-devel mailing list