All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	frowand.list@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	sam@ravnborg.org, linux@roeck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fbdev: Remove hot-unplug workaround for framebuffers without device
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:22:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fb7b8ca6-a252-c021-fe74-4e7ffbb3eb7e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d4599d9-e094-e7dd-5b91-282c2679aae4@suse.de>

Hello Thomas,

On 4/13/22 20:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]

>>>> index bc6ed750e915..bdd00d381bbc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>>>> @@ -1579,14 +1579,7 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a,
>>>>   			 * If it's not a platform device, at least print a warning. A
>>>>   			 * fix would add code to remove the device from the system.
>>>>   			 */
>>>> -			if (!device) {
>>>> -				/* TODO: Represent each OF framebuffer as its own
>>>> -				 * device in the device hierarchy. For now, offb
>>>> -				 * doesn't have such a device, so unregister the
>>>> -				 * framebuffer as before without warning.
>>>> -				 */
>>>> -				do_unregister_framebuffer(registered_fb[i]);
>>>
>>> Maybe we could still keep this for a couple of releases but with a big
>>> warning that's not supported in case there are out-of-tree drivers out
>>> there that still do this ?
>>>
>>> Or at least a warning if the do_unregister_framebuffer() call is removed.
>>
>> Yeah dying while holding console_lock isn't fun, and not having a WARN_ON
>> + bail-out code pretty much forces bug reporters to do a bisect here to
>> give us something more than "machine dies at boot with no messages".
>>
>> I'd just outright keep the WARN_ON here for 1-2 years even to really make
>> sure we got all the bug reports, since often these older machines only
>> update onto LTS releases.
> 
> If that's what the consent is, I'll go with it.
> 
> I'm just not sure if we talk about the same problem. offb didn't have a 
> platform device, so we recently added this workaround with 'if 
> (!device)'.  All the other fbdev drivers have a platform device; and 
> anything else that could fail is out-of-tree. We don't really care about 
> those AFAIK.
>

Yes, agreed on the offb change but I'm not really sure if we don't care
about out-of-tree modules. I mean, you are right in theory but I still
feel that we are changing a core behavior without giving people time to
sort out if needed.

Since before commit 27599aacbaef ("fbdev: Hot-unplug firmware fb devices
on forced removal") registered FBs didn't need to have a device, but now
that will lead to a NULL pointer dereference in dev_is_platform(device).

And that change only landed in v5.18-rc1, so it is fairly recent.

I know that we follow https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
but still my opinion is that having a warning for a couple of releases
if registered_fb[i]->device is NULL, instead of just crashing would be
a better way to handle this.
 
> With offb converted, we could practically remove all of the checks here 
> and call platform_device_unregister() unconditionally.
>

Yes for mainline, but as mentioned I thought mostly about out-of-tree. If
folks agree that we shouldn't care about these, I'm Ok with that as well.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	sam@ravnborg.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux@roeck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fbdev: Remove hot-unplug workaround for framebuffers without device
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:22:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fb7b8ca6-a252-c021-fe74-4e7ffbb3eb7e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d4599d9-e094-e7dd-5b91-282c2679aae4@suse.de>

Hello Thomas,

On 4/13/22 20:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]

>>>> index bc6ed750e915..bdd00d381bbc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>>>> @@ -1579,14 +1579,7 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a,
>>>>   			 * If it's not a platform device, at least print a warning. A
>>>>   			 * fix would add code to remove the device from the system.
>>>>   			 */
>>>> -			if (!device) {
>>>> -				/* TODO: Represent each OF framebuffer as its own
>>>> -				 * device in the device hierarchy. For now, offb
>>>> -				 * doesn't have such a device, so unregister the
>>>> -				 * framebuffer as before without warning.
>>>> -				 */
>>>> -				do_unregister_framebuffer(registered_fb[i]);
>>>
>>> Maybe we could still keep this for a couple of releases but with a big
>>> warning that's not supported in case there are out-of-tree drivers out
>>> there that still do this ?
>>>
>>> Or at least a warning if the do_unregister_framebuffer() call is removed.
>>
>> Yeah dying while holding console_lock isn't fun, and not having a WARN_ON
>> + bail-out code pretty much forces bug reporters to do a bisect here to
>> give us something more than "machine dies at boot with no messages".
>>
>> I'd just outright keep the WARN_ON here for 1-2 years even to really make
>> sure we got all the bug reports, since often these older machines only
>> update onto LTS releases.
> 
> If that's what the consent is, I'll go with it.
> 
> I'm just not sure if we talk about the same problem. offb didn't have a 
> platform device, so we recently added this workaround with 'if 
> (!device)'.  All the other fbdev drivers have a platform device; and 
> anything else that could fail is out-of-tree. We don't really care about 
> those AFAIK.
>

Yes, agreed on the offb change but I'm not really sure if we don't care
about out-of-tree modules. I mean, you are right in theory but I still
feel that we are changing a core behavior without giving people time to
sort out if needed.

Since before commit 27599aacbaef ("fbdev: Hot-unplug firmware fb devices
on forced removal") registered FBs didn't need to have a device, but now
that will lead to a NULL pointer dereference in dev_is_platform(device).

And that change only landed in v5.18-rc1, so it is fairly recent.

I know that we follow https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
but still my opinion is that having a warning for a couple of releases
if registered_fb[i]->device is NULL, instead of just crashing would be
a better way to handle this.
 
> With offb converted, we could practically remove all of the checks here 
> and call platform_device_unregister() unconditionally.
>

Yes for mainline, but as mentioned I thought mostly about out-of-tree. If
folks agree that we shouldn't care about these, I'm Ok with that as well.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	sam@ravnborg.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux@roeck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fbdev: Remove hot-unplug workaround for framebuffers without device
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:22:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fb7b8ca6-a252-c021-fe74-4e7ffbb3eb7e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d4599d9-e094-e7dd-5b91-282c2679aae4@suse.de>

Hello Thomas,

On 4/13/22 20:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]

>>>> index bc6ed750e915..bdd00d381bbc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>>>> @@ -1579,14 +1579,7 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a,
>>>>   			 * If it's not a platform device, at least print a warning. A
>>>>   			 * fix would add code to remove the device from the system.
>>>>   			 */
>>>> -			if (!device) {
>>>> -				/* TODO: Represent each OF framebuffer as its own
>>>> -				 * device in the device hierarchy. For now, offb
>>>> -				 * doesn't have such a device, so unregister the
>>>> -				 * framebuffer as before without warning.
>>>> -				 */
>>>> -				do_unregister_framebuffer(registered_fb[i]);
>>>
>>> Maybe we could still keep this for a couple of releases but with a big
>>> warning that's not supported in case there are out-of-tree drivers out
>>> there that still do this ?
>>>
>>> Or at least a warning if the do_unregister_framebuffer() call is removed.
>>
>> Yeah dying while holding console_lock isn't fun, and not having a WARN_ON
>> + bail-out code pretty much forces bug reporters to do a bisect here to
>> give us something more than "machine dies at boot with no messages".
>>
>> I'd just outright keep the WARN_ON here for 1-2 years even to really make
>> sure we got all the bug reports, since often these older machines only
>> update onto LTS releases.
> 
> If that's what the consent is, I'll go with it.
> 
> I'm just not sure if we talk about the same problem. offb didn't have a 
> platform device, so we recently added this workaround with 'if 
> (!device)'.  All the other fbdev drivers have a platform device; and 
> anything else that could fail is out-of-tree. We don't really care about 
> those AFAIK.
>

Yes, agreed on the offb change but I'm not really sure if we don't care
about out-of-tree modules. I mean, you are right in theory but I still
feel that we are changing a core behavior without giving people time to
sort out if needed.

Since before commit 27599aacbaef ("fbdev: Hot-unplug firmware fb devices
on forced removal") registered FBs didn't need to have a device, but now
that will lead to a NULL pointer dereference in dev_is_platform(device).

And that change only landed in v5.18-rc1, so it is fairly recent.

I know that we follow https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
but still my opinion is that having a warning for a couple of releases
if registered_fb[i]->device is NULL, instead of just crashing would be
a better way to handle this.
 
> With offb converted, we could practically remove all of the checks here 
> and call platform_device_unregister() unconditionally.
>

Yes for mainline, but as mentioned I thought mostly about out-of-tree. If
folks agree that we shouldn't care about these, I'm Ok with that as well.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat


  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-19  7:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-13  9:24 [PATCH 0/2] of: Register platform device for each framebuffer Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13  9:24 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13  9:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] of: Create platform devices for OF framebuffers Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13  9:24   ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 10:45   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-13 10:49     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 12:51   ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 12:51     ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 12:51     ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 17:58     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 17:58       ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 17:58       ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 18:02       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-13 18:02         ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-13 18:02         ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-13 18:46       ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 18:46         ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 18:46         ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 18:53         ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 18:53           ` Rob Herring
2022-04-13 18:53           ` Rob Herring
2022-04-18 18:09     ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-18 18:09       ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-18 18:09       ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13  9:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] fbdev: Remove hot-unplug workaround for framebuffers without device Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13  9:24   ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 10:50   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-13 16:05     ` Daniel Vetter
2022-04-13 16:05       ` Daniel Vetter
2022-04-13 16:05       ` Daniel Vetter
2022-04-13 18:09       ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 18:09         ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-13 18:09         ` Thomas Zimmermann
2022-04-19  7:22         ` Javier Martinez Canillas [this message]
2022-04-19  7:22           ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2022-04-19  7:22           ` Javier Martinez Canillas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fb7b8ca6-a252-c021-fe74-4e7ffbb3eb7e@redhat.com \
    --to=javierm@redhat.com \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=deller@gmx.de \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.