From: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
sean@poorly.run, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Jerry.Zuo@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Skip validating ports during destruction, just ref
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 15:24:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45a88f6ea29ad2b17bcf8efb56302eed7c91e5b7.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9twXpQDRA6s7fP3P49EL0BbrerJGXwsY33t9-bGNh=ASig@mail.gmail.com>
Pushed to drm-misc-fixes, thanks!
On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 06:08 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 08:47, Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Jerry Zuo pointed out a rather obscure hotplugging issue that it seems I
> > accidentally introduced into DRM two years ago.
> >
> > Pretend we have a topology like this:
> >
> > > - DP-1: mst_primary
> > |- DP-4: active display
> > |- DP-5: disconnected
> > |- DP-6: active hub
> > |- DP-7: active display
> > |- DP-8: disconnected
> > |- DP-9: disconnected
> >
> > If we unplug DP-6, the topology starting at DP-7 will be destroyed but
> > it's payloads will live on in DP-1's VCPI allocations and thus require
> > removal. However, this removal currently fails because
> > drm_dp_update_payload_part1() will (rightly so) try to validate the port
> > before accessing it, fail then abort. If we keep going, eventually we
> > run the MST hub out of bandwidth and all new allocations will start to
> > fail (or in my case; all new displays just start flickering a ton).
> >
> > We could just teach drm_dp_update_payload_part1() not to drop the port
> > ref in this case, but then we also need to teach
> > drm_dp_destroy_payload_step1() to do the same thing, then hope no one
> > ever adds anything to the that requires a validated port reference in
> > drm_dp_destroy_connector_work(). Kind of sketchy.
> >
> > So let's go with a more clever solution: any port that
> > drm_dp_destroy_connector_work() interacts with is guaranteed to still
> > exist in memory until we say so. While said port might not be valid we
> > don't really care: that's the whole reason we're destroying it in the
> > first place! So, teach drm_dp_get_validated_port_ref() to use the all
> > mighty current_work() function to avoid attempting to validate ports
> > from the context of mgr->destroy_connector_work. I can't see any
> > situation where this wouldn't be safe, and this avoids having to play
> > whack-a-mole in the future of trying to work around port validation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
> > Fixes: 263efde31f97 ("drm/dp/mst: Get validated port ref in
> > drm_dp_update_payload_part1()")
> > Reported-by: Jerry Zuo <Jerry.Zuo@amd.com>
> > Cc: Jerry Zuo <Jerry.Zuo@amd.com>
> > Cc: Harry Wentland <Harry.Wentland@amd.com>
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.6+
>
> Much as I constantly feel we are missing some better way to do all of
> this, this seems like a reasonable fix.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > index 529414556962..08978ad72f33 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > @@ -1023,9 +1023,20 @@ static struct drm_dp_mst_port
> > *drm_dp_mst_get_port_ref_locked(struct drm_dp_mst_
> > static struct drm_dp_mst_port *drm_dp_get_validated_port_ref(struct
> > drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, struct drm_dp_mst_port *port)
> > {
> > struct drm_dp_mst_port *rport = NULL;
> > +
> > mutex_lock(&mgr->lock);
> > - if (mgr->mst_primary)
> > - rport = drm_dp_mst_get_port_ref_locked(mgr->mst_primary,
> > port);
> > + /*
> > + * Port may or may not be 'valid' but we don't care about that
> > when
> > + * destroying the port and we are guaranteed that the port pointer
> > + * will be valid until we've finished
> > + */
> > + if (current_work() == &mgr->destroy_connector_work) {
> > + kref_get(&port->kref);
> > + rport = port;
> > + } else if (mgr->mst_primary) {
> > + rport = drm_dp_mst_get_port_ref_locked(mgr->mst_primary,
> > + port);
> > + }
> > mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock);
> > return rport;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-21 20:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-13 22:46 Lyude Paul
2018-11-21 20:08 ` Dave Airlie
2018-11-21 20:24 ` Lyude Paul [this message]
2018-11-22 8:34 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-11-26 20:37 ` Lyude Paul
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45a88f6ea29ad2b17bcf8efb56302eed7c91e5b7.camel@redhat.com \
--to=lyude@redhat.com \
--cc=Jerry.Zuo@amd.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxime.ripard@bootlin.com \
--cc=sean@poorly.run \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome