[PATCH v4 7/8] drm/i2c: tda998x: register as a drm bridge

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 07:04:16PM +0300, Jyri Sarha wrote:
> On 24/04/18 13:14, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2018-04-24 10:08, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> 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?
> > 
> > Right, auto-remove is a no-go. So, improving on the previous...
> > 
> > (I think drm_panel might suffer from this issue too?)
> 
> Yes it does and I took a shot at trying to fix it at the end of the
> previous merge window, but gave up as I run out of time. I re-spun the
> work now after reading this thread. I add you and Russell to cc.

Right, and these exact problems are what the component helper is
there to sort out, in a subsystem independent way.

What is the problem with the component helper that people seem to
be soo loathed to use it, instead preferring to come up with sub-
standard and broken alternatives?

-- 
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