[PATCH 1/1] change the order to cleanup drm_property_blob after drm_crtc

[Xiong, James]

Could someone please take a look and see if the change makes sense at all?

Thanks,
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Xiong, James 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:09 AM
To: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; Xiong, James <james.xiong at intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] change the order to cleanup drm_property_blob after drm_crtc

From: "Xiong, James" <james.xiong at intel.com>

Previously drm_mode_config_cleanup freed drm_property_blob first, then the drm_crtc which triggered unref calls to its associated drm_propery_blob, and could potentially cause memory corruption.

Signed-off-by: Xiong, James <james.xiong at intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c index 30fea23..c93576a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
@@ -5950,11 +5950,6 @@ void drm_mode_config_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
 		drm_property_destroy(dev, property);
 	}
 
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(blob, bt, &dev->mode_config.property_blob_list,
-				 head_global) {
-		drm_property_unreference_blob(blob);
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * Single-threaded teardown context, so it's not required to grab the
 	 * fb_lock to protect against concurrent fb_list access. Contrary, it @@ -5977,6 +5972,11 @@ void drm_mode_config_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
 		crtc->funcs->destroy(crtc);
 	}
 
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(blob, bt, &dev->mode_config.property_blob_list,
+				head_global) {
+		drm_property_unreference_blob(blob);
+	}
+
 	ida_destroy(&dev->mode_config.connector_ida);
 	idr_destroy(&dev->mode_config.tile_idr);
 	idr_destroy(&dev->mode_config.crtc_idr);
--
1.9.1