Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] drm/drm_crtc: ensure dma_fence_ops remain valid during device unbind

["Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>]

On 10/20/26 09:14, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-07-21 at 09:21 +0100, André Draszik wrote:
>>
> 
> […]
> 
>>
>>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> - Philipp: update kerneldoc, add Fixes:
>>
>> v2: new patch
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
>> index 63ead8ba6756..e8e80c936852 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
>> @@ -493,14 +493,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__drmm_crtc_alloc_with_planes);
>>   * drm_crtc_cleanup - Clean up the core crtc usage
>>   * @crtc: CRTC to cleanup
>>   *
>> - * This function cleans up @crtc and removes it from the DRM mode setting
>> - * core. Note that the function does *not* free the crtc structure itself,
>> - * this is the responsibility of the caller.
>> + * This function cleans up @crtc and removes it from the DRM mode setting core,
>> + * after first waiting an RCU grace period to ensure @crtc->dev can safely be
>> + * dereferenced by our dma_fence_ops.
>> + *
>> + * Note that the function does *not* free the crtc structure itself, this is the
>> + * responsibility of the caller.
>>   */
>>  void drm_crtc_cleanup(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>>  {
>>  	struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
>>  
>> +	/* Ensure our dma_fence_ops remain valid for an RCU grace period after
>> +	 * the fence is signaled. This is necessary because our dma_fence_ops
>> +	 * dereference crtc->dev.
>> +	 */
>> +	synchronize_rcu();
>> +
>>  	/* Note that the crtc_list is considered to be static; should we
>>  	 * remove the drm_crtc at runtime we would have to decrement all
>>  	 * the indices on the drm_crtc after us in the crtc_list.
> 
> 
> Seems we forgot [1] this patch. Sorry about that.
> 
> This fix also looks fine to me (for now) since it's what the dma_fence
> contract currently demands.
> 
> I'm a bit nervous about a synchronize_rcu() being in every cleanup
> path, but I suspect it's the most reasonable thing to do now.
> 
> Let's wait a day or two to see if anyone has fundamental objections.
> Could someone with some CRTC knowledge give it an R-b? Otherwise I'd
> push it this week.

I just picked them up and I'm about to push them to drm-misc-fixes.

Regards,
Christian.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Philipp
> 
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/73fc12734386c9bebc9cf6d3cea4c5f8e125255e.camel@mailbox.org/T/#thttps://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/73fc12734386c9bebc9cf6d3cea4c5f8e125255e.camel@mailbox.org/T/#t