[PATCH v9 3/3] drm/bridge: add warning for bridges not using devm_drm_bridge_alloc()

[Luca Ceresoli]

Hello Dmitry,

thanks for reviewing!

On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:06:43 +0300
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:

> On 20/06/2025 18:59, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge, all drivers in the mainline kernel adding a
> > DRM bridge are now converted to using devm_drm_bridge_alloc() for
> > allocation and initialization. Among others this ensures initialization of
> > the bridge refcount, allowing dynamic allocation lifetime.
> > 
> > devm_drm_bridge_alloc() is now mandatory for all new bridges. Code using
> > the old pattern ([devm_]kzalloc + filling the struct fields +
> > drm_bridge_add) is not allowed anymore.
> > 
> > Any drivers that might have been missed during the conversion, patches in
> > flight towards mainline and out-of-tre drivers still using the old pattern
> > will already be caught by a warning looking like:
> > 
> >    ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >    refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.
> >    WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 83 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0x120/0x148
> >    [...]
> >    Call trace:
> >     refcount_warn_saturate+0x120/0x148 (P)
> >     drm_bridge_get.part.0+0x70/0x98 [drm]
> >     drm_bridge_add+0x34/0x108 [drm]
> >     sn65dsi83_probe+0x200/0x480 [ti_sn65dsi83]
> >     [...]
> > 
> > This warning comes from the refcount code and happens because
> > drm_bridge_add() is increasing the refcount, which is uninitialized and
> > thus initially zero.
> > 
> > Having a warning and the corresponding stack trace is surely useful, but
> > the warning text does not clarify the root problem nor how to fix it.
> > 
> > Add a DRM_WARN() just before increasing the refcount, so the log will be
> > much more readable:
> > 
> >    [drm] DRM bridge corrupted or not allocated by devm_drm_bridge_alloc()
> >    ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >    refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.
> >    [...etc...]
> > 
> > A DRM_WARN is used because drm_warn and drm_WARN require a struct
> > drm_device pointer which is not yet available when adding a bridge.
> > 
> > Do not print the dev_name() in the warning because struct drm_bridge has no
> > pointer to the struct device. The affected driver should be easy to catch
> > based on the following stack trace however.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli at bootlin.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v9:
> > - change warning trigger from "refcount != 1" to "container not NULL"
> > 
> > This patch was added in v8
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 3 +++
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > index f001bbe95559aabf0aac9f25f89250ad4e1ad9c8..0b450b334afd82e0460f18fdd248f79d0a2b153d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > @@ -295,6 +295,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__devm_drm_bridge_alloc);
> >    */
> >   void drm_bridge_add(struct drm_bridge *bridge)  
> 
> Can we rename this function, making sure that noone can call it 
> directly? E.g. adding two underscores might point out that is is an 
> internal API.

I'm afraid I don't think this would be correct. Every bridge driver is
expected to call drm_bridge_add() at the end of probe/initialization,
to make the DRM subsystem aware that this bridge is ready for being
used.

The point of this patch, which is a completion to [1], is to ensure
that all drivers use the "new" process:

 1. bridge = devm_drm_bridge_alloc()
 2. drm_bridge_add(bridge)

and there are no users of the old process:

 1. bridge = [devm_]kzalloc()
 2. drm_bridge_add(bridge)

Does this addresses your concern?

[1] https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/commit/?id=b3f13e00a8de351832df7d628a15ca4db49ca94f

Luca

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com