[PATCH 1/3] drm/sti: do not remove the drm_bridge that was never added

Peter Rosin
2018-05-07T14:24:43Z

On 2018-05-07 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-05-07 15:39, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:12:21PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-03 11:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 09:40:23AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> The more natural approach would perhaps be to add an drm_bridge_add,
>>>>> but there are several other bridges that never call drm_bridge_add.
>>>>> Just removing the drm_bridge_remove is the easier fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
>>>>
>>>> This mess is much bigger. There's 2 pairs of bridge functions:
>>>>
>>>> - drm_bridge_attach/detach. Those are meant to be called by the overall
>>>> drm driver to connect/disconnect a drm_bridge.
>>>>
>>>> - drm_bridge_add/remove. These are supposed to be called by the bridge
>>>> driver itself to register/unregister itself. Maybe we should rename
>>>> them, since the same issue happens with drm_panel, with the same
>>>> confusion.
>>>>
>>>> I thought someone was working on a cleanup series to fix this mess, but I
>>>> didn't find anything.
>>>
>>> Ok, I just spotted the imbalance and didn't really dig into what
>>> actually happens in these error paths. Now that I have done so I
>>> believe that the removed drm_bridge_remove calls causes NULL
>>> dereferences if/when the error paths are triggered.
>>>
>>> So, I don't think this can wait for some bigger cleanup.
>>>
>>> drm_bridge_remove calls list_del_init calls __list_del_entry calls
>>> __list_del with NULL in both prev and next since the list member
>>> is never initialized. prev and next are dereferenced by __list_del
>>> and you have *boom*
>>>
>>> I recommend adding the tag
>>>
>>> Fixes: 84601dbdea36 ("drm: sti: rework init sequence")
>>>
>>> so that stable picks this one up.
>>
>> I just wanted to correct your commit message text - the correct solution
>> is definitely _not_ for sti here to call drm_bridge_add.
>
> Ah, I see what you mean. Do you want me to respin?

Hold on, no I don't agree. sti_hda.c does create a bridge for it's own
internal use. It does not drm_bridge_add it, because all that ever does
is adding the bridge to the global lost of bridges. But since this is
a bridge for internal use, there is little point in calling drm_bridge_add,
the driver currently gains nothing by doing so.

But, drm_bridge_add might be a good place to put common stuff for every
bridge in the system, so it might be worthwhile to start requiring all
bridges to be drm_bridge_add-ed. And IMHO, it would not be wrong to have
the sti-hda driver call drm_bridge_add on the bridge it creates.

Do you really think it is actively wrong to call drm_bridge_add for
internal bridges such as this?

Cheers,
Peter