Re: [PATCH 06/26] drm/bridge: add devm_drm_of_find_bridge

Laurent Pinchart
2025-12-15T09:53:15Z

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:41:32AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 06:47:37PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > On Mon Dec 1, 2025 at 5:51 PM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 05:25:39PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > >> Hi Maxime,
> > >>
> > >> On Mon Nov 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 02:05:37PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > >> >> Several drivers (about 20) follow the same pattern:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 1. get a pointer to a bridge (typically the next bridge in the chain) by
> > >> >> calling of_drm_find_bridge()
> > >> >> 2. store the returned pointer in the private driver data, keep it until
> > >> >> driver .remove
> > >> >> 3. dereference the pointer at attach time and possibly at other times
> > >> >>
> > >> >> of_drm_find_bridge() is now deprecated because it does not increment the
> > >> >> refcount and should be replaced with drm_of_find_bridge() +
> > >> >> drm_bridge_put().
> > >> >>
> > >> >> However some of those drivers have a complex code flow and adding a
> > >> >> drm_bridge_put() call in all the appropriate locations is error-prone,
> > >> >> leads to ugly and more complex code, and can lead to errors over time with
> > >> >> code flow changes.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> To handle all those drivers in a straightforward way, add a devm variant of
> > >> >> drm_of_find_bridge() that adds a devm action to invoke drm_bridge_put()
> > >> >> when the said driver is removed. This allows all those drivers to put the
> > >> >> reference automatically and safely with a one line change:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - priv->next_bridge = of_drm_find_bridge(remote_np);
> > >> >> + priv->next_bridge = devm_drm_of_find_bridge(dev, remote_np);
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> >> include/drm/drm_bridge.h | 5 +++++
> > >> >> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > >> >> index 09ad825f9cb8..c7baafbe5695 100644
> > >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> > >> >> @@ -1446,6 +1446,36 @@ struct drm_bridge *drm_of_find_bridge(struct device_node *np)
> > >> >> }
> > >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_of_find_bridge);
> > >> >>
> > >> >> +/**
> > >> >> + * devm_drm_of_find_bridge - find the bridge corresponding to the device
> > >> >> + * node in the global bridge list and add a devm
> > >> >> + * action to put it
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * @dev: device requesting the bridge
> > >> >> + * @np: device node
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * On success the returned bridge refcount is incremented, and a devm
> > >> >> + * action is added to call drm_bridge_put() when @dev is removed. So the
> > >> >> + * caller does not have to put the returned bridge explicitly.
> > >> >> + *
> > >> >> + * RETURNS:
> > >> >> + * drm_bridge control struct on success, NULL on failure
> > >> >> + */
> > >> >> +struct drm_bridge *devm_drm_of_find_bridge(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np)
> > >> >> +{
> > >> >> + struct drm_bridge *bridge = drm_of_find_bridge(np);
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> + if (bridge) {
> > >> >> + int err = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, drm_bridge_put_void, bridge);
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> + if (err)
> > >> >> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> > >> >> + }
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> + return bridge;
> > >> >> +}
> > >> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_drm_of_find_bridge);
> > >> >
> > >> > That's inherently unsafe though, because even if the bridge is removed
> > >> > other parts of DRM might still have a reference to it and could call
> > >> > into it.
> > >> >
> > >> > We'd then have dropped our reference to the next bridge, which could
> > >> > have been freed, and it's a use-after-free.
> > >>
> > >> I think you refer to this scenario:
> > >>
> > >> 1. pipeline: encoder --> bridge A --> bridge B --> bridge C
> > >> 2. encoder takes a reference to bridge B
> > >> using devm_drm_of_find_bridge() or other means
> > >> 3. bridge B takes a next_bridge reference to bridge C
> > >> using devm_drm_of_find_bridge()
> > >> 4. encoder calls (bridge B)->foo(), which in turns references
> > >> next_bridge, e.g.:
> > >>
> > >> b_foo() {
> > >> bar(b->next_bridge);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> If bridges B and C are removed, bridge C can be freed but B is still
> > >> allocated because the encoder holds a ref. So when step 4 happens, 'b->c'
> > >> would be a use-after-free (or NULL deref if b.remove cleared it, which is
> > >> just as bad).
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > >> If I got you correctly, then I'm a bit surprised by your comment. This
> > >> series is part of the first chapter of the hotplug work, which does not aim
> > >> at fixing everything but rather at fixing one part: handle dynamic
> > >> _allocation_ lifetime of drm_bridges by adding a refcount and
> > >> drm_bridge_get/put().
> > >>
> > >> Chapter 2 of the work is adding drm_bridge_enter/exit/unplug() [1] and
> > >> other changes in order to avoid code of drivers of removed bridges to
> > >> access fields they shouldn't. So the above example at point 4 would become:
> > >>
> > >> b_foo() {
> > >> if (!drm_bridge_enter())
> > >> return;
> > >> bar(b->c);
> > >> drm_bridge_exit();
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> And that avoids 'b->c' after bridge B is removed.
> > >>
> > >> Does that answer your remark?
> > >
> > > Not really. I wasn't really questionning your current focus, or the way
> > > you laid out the current agenda or whatever.
> > >
> > > What I am questionning though is whether or not we want to introduce
> > > something we will have to untangle soon, and even more so when we're not
> > > mentioning it anywhere.
> > >
> > >> > It's more complicated than it sounds, because we only have access to the
> > >> > drm_device when the bridge is attached, so later than probe.
> > >> >
> > >> > I wonder if we shouldn't tie the lifetime of that reference to the
> > >> > lifetime of the bridge itself, and we would give up the next_bridge
> > >> > reference only when we're destroyed ourselves.
> > >>
> > >> I'm afraid I'm not following you, sorry. Do you refer to the time between
> > >> the bridge removal (driver .remove) and the last bridge put (when
> > >> deallocation happens)?
> > >>
> > >> In that time frame the struct drm_bridge is still allocated along with any
> > >> next_bridge pointer it may contain, but the following bridge could have
> > >> been deallocated.
> > >>
> > >> What do you mean by "give up the next_bridge"?
> > >
> > > What I was trying to say was that if we want to fix the problem you
> > > illustrated about, we need to give up the reference at __drm_bridge_free
> > > time. So each bridge having a reference to a bridge would need to do so
> > > in its destroy hook.
> > >
> > > Since it's quite a common pattern, it would make sense to add a
> > > next_bridge field to drm_bridge itself, so the core can do it
> > > automatically in __drm_bridge_free if that pointer is !NULL.
> > >
> > > But...
> > >
> > >> > Storing a list of all the references we need to drop is going to be
> > >> > intrusive though, so maybe the easiest way to do it would be to create a
> > >> > next_bridge field in drm_bridge, and only drop the reference stored
> > >> > there?
> > >> >
> > >> > And possibly tie the whole thing together using a helper?
> > >> >
> > >> > Anyway, I'm not sure it should be a prerequisite to this series. I we do
> > >> > want to go the devm_drm_of_find_bridge route however, we should at least
> > >> > document that it's unsafe, and add a TODO entry to clean up the mess
> > >> > later on.
> > >
> > > ... I *really* don't consider it something you need to work on right now.
> > >
> > >> Do you mean the drm variant is unsafe while the original
> > >> (drm_of_find_bridge() in this series, might be renamed) is not? I
> > >> don't see how that can happen. If the driver for bridge B were to use
> > >> drm_of_find_bridge(), that driver would be responsible to
> > >> drm_bridge_put(b->next_bridge) in its .remove() function or earlier.
> > >> So the next_bridge pointing to bridge C would equally become subject
> > >> to use-after-free.
> > >
> > > No, I was saying that both are equally unsafe. But we're adding a new,
> > > broken, helper, and we don't mention anywhere that it is. So what I was
> > > saying is mostly do we really want to introduce some more broken code
> > > when we know it is. And if we do, we should be really clear about it.
> > >
> > >> devm does not make it worse, on the opposite it postpones the
> > >> drm_bridge_put(next_bridge) as late as possible: just after
> > >> b.remove().
> > >
> > > Which doesn't really change anything, does it? I'd expect the window
> > > between the remove and final drm_bridge_put to be much wider than the
> > > execution time of remove itself.
> > >
> > >> One final, high-level thought about the various 'next_bridge' pointers that
> > >> many bridge drivers have. Most of them do:
> > >>
> > >> 0. have a 'struct drm_bridge next_bridge *' in their private struct
> > >> 1. take the next_bridge reference during probe or another startup phase
> > >> 2. store it in their private driver struct
> > >> 3. use it to call drm_bridge_attach
> > >> 4. (pending) put the reference to it in their .remove or earlier
> > >>
> > >> I'm wondering whether we could let the DRM bridge core do it all, by
> > >> removing items 0, 1, 2 and 4, and change 3 as:
> > >>
> > >> - drm_bridge_attach(encoder, me->next_bridge, &me->bridge, flags);
> > >> + drm_of_bridge_attach(encoder, &me->bridge, dev->of_node, 1, -1, flags);
> > >>
> > >> where dev->of_node and the following integers are the same flags passed to
> > >> devm_drm_of_get_bridge() and the like, i.e. the endpoint info needed to
> > >> walk the DT graph and reach the next bridge.
> > >>
> > >> This would allow the core to take care of all locking and lifetime of the
> > >> next bridge, and most (all?) bridges would never access any pointers to the
> > >> next bridge. The idea is to let the core do the right thing in a single
> > >> place instead of trying to make all drivers do the right thing (and
> > >> touching dozen files when needing to touch the logic).
> > >>
> > >> That is more a long-term ideal than something I'd do right now, but having
> > >> opinions would be very interesting.
> > >
> > > That was pretty much my point, yeah.
> > >
> > > Maxime
> >
> > Let me recap this discussion, because there are various aspects and I need
> > to clarify by view on it.
> >
> > First: the problem you discuss is about drm_of_find_bridge() introduced in
> > patch 1. The devm variant is just equally affected.
> >
> > You proposed adding a next_bridge field in struct drm_bridge so there is an
> > automated, common call to drm_bridge_put() (and setting it to NULL). It
> > would remove some burden on individual drivers of course, but I don't think
> > it would solve the problem. In the same scenario we are discussing
> > (i.e. encoder --> bridge A --> bridge B --> bridge C, then B+C get removed)
> > B's next_bridge would be automatically put, but the encoder could still
> > call B->foo(), which could still do B->next_bridge.
>
> I mean, yes, that's what we have drm_bridge_enter and _exit for.
> B->next_bridge would still be valid, but we also still would have a
> reference to C so I'm not sure what the big deal is?
>
> > Additionally, as a matter of fact there are currently drivers storing
> > bridge pointers. The next_bridge is the most common case. Code using
> > drm_bridge_connector_init() for example can store up to eight of them, but
> > individual drivers are the hardest to hunt for.
>
> That's fine, we can have a custom destroy hook for those.
>
> > I can see these (potential) tools to handle this (not mutually exclusive):
> >
> > 1. remove drm_bridge pointers pointing to other bridges
> > 2. check whether a bridge (say B) still exists before any dereference
> > to B->another_bridge: that's drm_bridge_enter/exit()
> > 3. let owners of bridge pointers be notified when a bridge is unplugged,
> > so they can actively put their reference and clear their pointer
> >
> > For item 1, I think the drm_of_bridge_attach() idea quoted above would
> > work, at least for the simple cases where bridge drivers use the
> > next_bridge only for attach. A next_bridge pointer in struct drm_bridge is
> > not even needed in that case, the pointer would be computed from OF when
> > needed and not stored. I can do an experiment and send a first series, do
> > you think it would be useful?
> >
> > For item 2, I still think it would just work for cases not (or not yet)
> > covered by item 1. Given the same example as above:
> >
> > b_foo() {
> > if (!drm_bridge_enter())
> > return;
> > bar(b->c);
> > drm_bridge_exit();
> > }
> >
> > drm_bridge_enter() will prevent doing anything on b->whatever, including
> > any stale pointers. The idea is "I, bridge B, have been unplugged, my
> > resources are not reliably usable, keep out!". No?
>
> Yes.
>
> > However item 2 won't prevent the caller from keeping the pointer for a long
> > time, especially if b_foo() is a void function so it cannot return anything
> > saying "I was unplugged, I'm no longer theree".
>
> Indeed.
>
> > And that's where item 3 (notifiers) might come in useful: upon
> > receiving a bridge removal notification any driver or other code is in
> > a position to actively put its reference to the bridge and clear its
> > pointer. I had proposed something in [0], which can likely be
> > improved, but it is useful in my current draft solution.
> >
> > I'd like to know your opinions about the above points, so we can
> > progressively clarify the path forward.
>
> I largely agree with everything you said, but that wasn't my point at
> the beginning of the discussion though. My point was that you're giving
> away the reference too soon with devm_drm_of_find_bridge (or by doing it
> in remove).
>
> > PS: I just realized about a fourth option: a revocable [1] (thanks Laurent
> > who pointed me to it). That's basically a wrapper around a pointer that
> > allows to guard from accessing it when the pointed object is gone. To me it
> > looks somewhat equivalent to drm_bridge_enter/exit() but with very
> > different APIs. I still haven't looked at the details.
>
> Yeah, a revocable pointer would work too. It will be a pain to implement
> in C though.

I discussed this with Tzung-Bi at LPC, which gave me a more detailed
view of the particular issue he was trying to solve. I believe that
reference-counting is a better solution than the new revocable API for
the cros-ec drivers. The revocable API may still have its place in the
kernel, but I increasingly think that it may be a workaround for cases
where introducing reference counting would be very difficult due to
historical reasons.

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart