Hi,
I have a aquestion about patch in patch-2.5.65-ac1 for vt.c.
Here is a extracted patch from patch-2.5.65-ac1.
I think it's no need for 2.5.65.
Regards,
Osamu Tomita
diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c linux-2.5.65-ac1/drivers/char/vt.c
--- linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-18 16:46:47.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.5.65-ac1/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-18 16:58:38.000000000 +0000
@@ -732,6 +732,12 @@
if (new_cols == video_num_columns && new_rows == video_num_lines)
return 0;
+ err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
+ if (err) {
+ kfree(newscreen);
+ return err;
+ }
+
newscreen = (unsigned short *) kmalloc(new_screen_size, GFP_USER);
if (!newscreen)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -746,12 +752,6 @@
video_size_row = new_row_size;
screenbuf_size = new_screen_size;
- err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
- if (err) {
- kfree(newscreen);
- return err;
- }
-
rlth = min(old_row_size, new_row_size);
rrem = new_row_size - rlth;
old_origin = origin;
@@ -2445,7 +2445,7 @@
struct tty_driver console_driver;
static int console_refcount;
-static int __init con_init(void)
+static void __init con_init(void)
{
const char *display_desc = NULL;
unsigned int currcons = 0;
@@ -2493,7 +2493,6 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE
register_console(&vt_console_driver);
#endif
- return 0;
}
console_initcall(con_init);
On 21 Mar 03 at 10:46, Osamu Tomita wrote:
> I have a aquestion about patch in patch-2.5.65-ac1 for vt.c.
> Here is a extracted patch from patch-2.5.65-ac1.
> I think it's no need for 2.5.65.
There should be none of these two resize_screen calls. If you'll
resize non-foreground VT, they'll trigger fbcon_resize with
con != visible_con, resizing your display even if they should not.
Only the "if (IS_VISIBLE) err = resize_screen(...);" resize should
be there (AFAIK), if con_resize follows other con_* APIs: call it
only if con is visible, like it is done with putcs and others.
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]
> --- linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-18 16:46:47.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.5.65-ac1/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-18 16:58:38.000000000 +0000
> @@ -732,6 +732,12 @@
> if (new_cols == video_num_columns && new_rows == video_num_lines)
> return 0;
>
> + err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
> + if (err) {
> + kfree(newscreen);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> newscreen = (unsigned short *) kmalloc(new_screen_size, GFP_USER);
> if (!newscreen)
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -746,12 +752,6 @@
> video_size_row = new_row_size;
> screenbuf_size = new_screen_size;
>
> - err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
> - if (err) {
> - kfree(newscreen);
> - return err;
> - }
> -
> rlth = min(old_row_size, new_row_size);
> rrem = new_row_size - rlth;
> old_origin = origin;
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 21 Mar 03 at 10:46, Osamu Tomita wrote:
>
> > I have a aquestion about patch in patch-2.5.65-ac1 for vt.c.
> > Here is a extracted patch from patch-2.5.65-ac1.
> > I think it's no need for 2.5.65.
>
> There should be none of these two resize_screen calls. If you'll
> resize non-foreground VT, they'll trigger fbcon_resize with
> con != visible_con, resizing your display even if they should not.
>
> Only the "if (IS_VISIBLE) err = resize_screen(...);" resize should
> be there (AFAIK), if con_resize follows other con_* APIs: call it
> only if con is visible, like it is done with putcs and others.
> Petr Vandrovec
> [email protected]
>
> > --- linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-18 16:46:47.000000000 +0000
> > +++ linux-2.5.65-ac1/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-18 16:58:38.000000000 +0000
> > @@ -732,6 +732,12 @@
> > if (new_cols == video_num_columns && new_rows == video_num_lines)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
> > + if (err) {
> > + kfree(newscreen);
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > +
> > newscreen = (unsigned short *) kmalloc(new_screen_size, GFP_USER);
> > if (!newscreen)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -746,12 +752,6 @@
> > video_size_row = new_row_size;
> > screenbuf_size = new_screen_size;
> >
> > - err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
> > - if (err) {
> > - kfree(newscreen);
> > - return err;
> > - }
> > -
> > rlth = min(old_row_size, new_row_size);
> > rrem = new_row_size - rlth;
> > old_origin = origin;
I understand. But if resize_screen() failed this attempt to kfree
before kmalloc. Is there case resize_screen success but kmalloc
fail?
How about patch bellow.
--- linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c.orig 2003-03-18 06:44:42.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-22 10:06:49.000000000 +0900
@@ -736,6 +736,12 @@
if (!newscreen)
return -ENOMEM;
+ err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
+ if (err) {
+ kfree(newscreen);
+ return err;
+ }
+
old_rows = video_num_lines;
old_cols = video_num_columns;
old_row_size = video_size_row;
@@ -746,12 +752,6 @@
video_size_row = new_row_size;
screenbuf_size = new_screen_size;
- err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
- if (err) {
- kfree(newscreen);
- return err;
- }
-
rlth = min(old_row_size, new_row_size);
rrem = new_row_size - rlth;
old_origin = origin;
Regards,
Osamu Tomita
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 10:24:53AM +0900, Osamu Tomita wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > On 21 Mar 03 at 10:46, Osamu Tomita wrote:
> >
> > > I have a aquestion about patch in patch-2.5.65-ac1 for vt.c.
> > > Here is a extracted patch from patch-2.5.65-ac1.
> > > I think it's no need for 2.5.65.
> >
> > There should be none of these two resize_screen calls. If you'll
> > resize non-foreground VT, they'll trigger fbcon_resize with
> > con != visible_con, resizing your display even if they should not.
> >
> > Only the "if (IS_VISIBLE) err = resize_screen(...);" resize should
> > be there (AFAIK), if con_resize follows other con_* APIs: call it
> > only if con is visible, like it is done with putcs and others.
> > > old_origin = origin;
> I understand. But if resize_screen() failed this attempt to kfree
> before kmalloc. Is there case resize_screen success but kmalloc
> fail?
> How about patch bellow.
As I said: currently there is one unconditional call to resize_screen
and one conditional (depending on IS_VISIBLE). Unconditional one
should not be moved around, but removed completely. Look at
fbcon_resize (only con_resize user) implementation, it will do
wrong things if called with non-visible currcons. I believe that
James has this correct in his latest patches.
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]
>
> --- linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c.orig 2003-03-18 06:44:42.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.5.65/drivers/char/vt.c 2003-03-22 10:06:49.000000000 +0900
> @@ -736,6 +736,12 @@
> if (!newscreen)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
> + if (err) {
> + kfree(newscreen);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> old_rows = video_num_lines;
> old_cols = video_num_columns;
> old_row_size = video_size_row;
> @@ -746,12 +752,6 @@
> video_size_row = new_row_size;
> screenbuf_size = new_screen_size;
>
> - err = resize_screen(currcons, new_cols, new_rows);
> - if (err) {
> - kfree(newscreen);
> - return err;
> - }
> -
> rlth = min(old_row_size, new_row_size);
> rrem = new_row_size - rlth;
> old_origin = origin;
> Regards,
> Osamu Tomita
>
>