Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/sti: do not remove the drm_bridge that was never
 added
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@samsung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@st.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20180502074025.12421-1-peda@axentia.se>
 <20180502074025.12421-2-peda@axentia.se>
 <20180503090648.GG12521@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <bd8d12f7-0c71-c96b-80fa-54de7de39511@axentia.se>
 <20180507133929.GG12521@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <d378241f-7420-bbaf-c447-18cdfd4f9dd3@axentia.se>
Organization: Axentia Technologies AB
Message-ID: <7f79c109-6b0f-000e-569b-1f702e0006d3@axentia.se>
Date:   Mon, 7 May 2018 16:24:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d378241f-7420-bbaf-c447-18cdfd4f9dd3@axentia.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: axentia.se does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2018 14:24:46.7013 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1b1b7df0-6155-4da0-ad46-08d5b426495b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 4ee68585-03e1-4785-942a-df9c1871a234
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM4PR0202MB2770
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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