- Linux-stable-mirror - lists.linaro.org

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm: Remove PageReserved manipulation from drm_pci_alloc" failed to apply to 4.9-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.9-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From ea36ec8623f56791c6ff6738d0509b7920f85220 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Wilson <chris(a)chris-wilson.co.uk> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:16:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] drm: Remove PageReserved manipulation from drm_pci_alloc drm_pci_alloc/drm_pci_free are very thin wrappers around the core dma facilities, and we have no special reason within the drm layer to behave differently. In particular, since commit de09d31dd38a50fdce106c15abd68432eebbd014 Author: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov(a)linux.intel.com> Date: Fri Jan 15 16:51:42 2016 -0800 page-flags: define PG_reserved behavior on compound pages As far as I can see there's no users of PG_reserved on compound pages. Let's use PF_NO_COMPOUND here. it has been illegal to combine GFP_COMP with SetPageReserved, so lets stop doing both and leave the dma layer to its own devices. Reported-by: Taketo Kabe Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1027 Fixes: de09d31dd38a ("page-flags: define PG_reserved behavior on compound pages") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris(a)chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> # v4.5+ Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher(a)amd.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200202171635.4039044-1-chri… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c index f2e43d341980..d16dac4325f9 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c @@ -51,8 +51,6 @@ drm_dma_handle_t *drm_pci_alloc(struct drm_device * dev, size_t size, size_t align) { drm_dma_handle_t *dmah; - unsigned long addr; - size_t sz; /* pci_alloc_consistent only guarantees alignment to the smallest * PAGE_SIZE order which is greater than or equal to the requested size. @@ -68,20 +66,13 @@ drm_dma_handle_t *drm_pci_alloc(struct drm_device * dev, size_t size, size_t ali dmah->size = size; dmah->vaddr = dma_alloc_coherent(&dev->pdev->dev, size, &dmah->busaddr, - GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_COMP); + GFP_KERNEL); if (dmah->vaddr == NULL) { kfree(dmah); return NULL; } - /* XXX - Is virt_to_page() legal for consistent mem? */ - /* Reserve */ - for (addr = (unsigned long)dmah->vaddr, sz = size; - sz > 0; addr += PAGE_SIZE, sz -= PAGE_SIZE) { - SetPageReserved(virt_to_page((void *)addr)); - } - return dmah; } @@ -94,19 +85,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_pci_alloc); */ void __drm_legacy_pci_free(struct drm_device * dev, drm_dma_handle_t * dmah) { - unsigned long addr; - size_t sz; - - if (dmah->vaddr) { - /* XXX - Is virt_to_page() legal for consistent mem? */ - /* Unreserve */ - for (addr = (unsigned long)dmah->vaddr, sz = dmah->size; - sz > 0; addr += PAGE_SIZE, sz -= PAGE_SIZE) { - ClearPageReserved(virt_to_page((void *)addr)); - } + if (dmah->vaddr) dma_free_coherent(&dev->pdev->dev, dmah->size, dmah->vaddr, dmah->busaddr); - } } /**

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm: Remove PageReserved manipulation from drm_pci_alloc" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From ea36ec8623f56791c6ff6738d0509b7920f85220 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Wilson <chris(a)chris-wilson.co.uk> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 17:16:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] drm: Remove PageReserved manipulation from drm_pci_alloc drm_pci_alloc/drm_pci_free are very thin wrappers around the core dma facilities, and we have no special reason within the drm layer to behave differently. In particular, since commit de09d31dd38a50fdce106c15abd68432eebbd014 Author: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov(a)linux.intel.com> Date: Fri Jan 15 16:51:42 2016 -0800 page-flags: define PG_reserved behavior on compound pages As far as I can see there's no users of PG_reserved on compound pages. Let's use PF_NO_COMPOUND here. it has been illegal to combine GFP_COMP with SetPageReserved, so lets stop doing both and leave the dma layer to its own devices. Reported-by: Taketo Kabe Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1027 Fixes: de09d31dd38a ("page-flags: define PG_reserved behavior on compound pages") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris(a)chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> # v4.5+ Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher(a)amd.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200202171635.4039044-1-chri… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c index f2e43d341980..d16dac4325f9 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c @@ -51,8 +51,6 @@ drm_dma_handle_t *drm_pci_alloc(struct drm_device * dev, size_t size, size_t align) { drm_dma_handle_t *dmah; - unsigned long addr; - size_t sz; /* pci_alloc_consistent only guarantees alignment to the smallest * PAGE_SIZE order which is greater than or equal to the requested size. @@ -68,20 +66,13 @@ drm_dma_handle_t *drm_pci_alloc(struct drm_device * dev, size_t size, size_t ali dmah->size = size; dmah->vaddr = dma_alloc_coherent(&dev->pdev->dev, size, &dmah->busaddr, - GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_COMP); + GFP_KERNEL); if (dmah->vaddr == NULL) { kfree(dmah); return NULL; } - /* XXX - Is virt_to_page() legal for consistent mem? */ - /* Reserve */ - for (addr = (unsigned long)dmah->vaddr, sz = size; - sz > 0; addr += PAGE_SIZE, sz -= PAGE_SIZE) { - SetPageReserved(virt_to_page((void *)addr)); - } - return dmah; } @@ -94,19 +85,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_pci_alloc); */ void __drm_legacy_pci_free(struct drm_device * dev, drm_dma_handle_t * dmah) { - unsigned long addr; - size_t sz; - - if (dmah->vaddr) { - /* XXX - Is virt_to_page() legal for consistent mem? */ - /* Unreserve */ - for (addr = (unsigned long)dmah->vaddr, sz = dmah->size; - sz > 0; addr += PAGE_SIZE, sz -= PAGE_SIZE) { - ClearPageReserved(virt_to_page((void *)addr)); - } + if (dmah->vaddr) dma_free_coherent(&dev->pdev->dev, dmah->size, dmah->vaddr, dmah->busaddr); - } } /**

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable" failed to apply to 5.5-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.5-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 8732fe46b20c951493bfc4dba0ad08efdf41de81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:43:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The issues caused by: commit 64e62bdf04ab ("drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr") Prompted me to take a closer look at how we clear the payload state in general when disabling the topology, and it turns out there's actually two subtle issues here. The first is that we're not grabbing &mgr.payload_lock when clearing the payloads in drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(). Seeing as the canonical lock order is &mgr.payload_lock -> &mgr.lock (because we always want &mgr.lock to be the inner-most lock so topology validation always works), this makes perfect sense. It also means that -technically- there could be racing between someone calling drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() to disable the topology, along with a modeset occurring that's modifying the payload state at the same time. The second is the more obvious issue that Wayne Lin discovered, that we're not clearing proposed_payloads when disabling the topology. I actually can't see any obvious places where the racing caused by the first issue would break something, and it could be that some of our higher-level locks already prevent this by happenstance, but better safe then sorry. So, let's make it so that drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() first grabs &mgr.payload_lock followed by &mgr.lock so that we never race when modifying the payload state. Then, we also clear proposed_payloads to fix the original issue of enabling a new topology with a dirty payload state. This doesn't clear any of the drm_dp_vcpi structures, but those are getting destroyed along with the ports anyway. Changes since v1: * Use sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])/sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0]) instead - vsyrjala Cc: Sean Paul <sean(a)poorly.run> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin(a)amd.com> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # v4.4+ Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200122194321.14953-1-lyude@… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index e78c73e975ed..4104f15f4594 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -3447,6 +3447,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms int ret = 0; struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock); mutex_lock(&mgr->lock); if (mst_state == mgr->mst_state) goto out_unlock; @@ -3505,7 +3506,10 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms /* this can fail if the device is gone */ drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(mgr->aux, DP_MSTM_CTRL, 0); ret = 0; - memset(mgr->payloads, 0, mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(struct drm_dp_payload)); + memset(mgr->payloads, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])); + memset(mgr->proposed_vcpis, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0])); mgr->payload_mask = 0; set_bit(0, &mgr->payload_mask); mgr->vcpi_mask = 0; @@ -3514,6 +3518,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock); if (mstb) drm_dp_mst_topology_put_mstb(mstb); return ret;

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 8732fe46b20c951493bfc4dba0ad08efdf41de81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:43:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The issues caused by: commit 64e62bdf04ab ("drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr") Prompted me to take a closer look at how we clear the payload state in general when disabling the topology, and it turns out there's actually two subtle issues here. The first is that we're not grabbing &mgr.payload_lock when clearing the payloads in drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(). Seeing as the canonical lock order is &mgr.payload_lock -> &mgr.lock (because we always want &mgr.lock to be the inner-most lock so topology validation always works), this makes perfect sense. It also means that -technically- there could be racing between someone calling drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() to disable the topology, along with a modeset occurring that's modifying the payload state at the same time. The second is the more obvious issue that Wayne Lin discovered, that we're not clearing proposed_payloads when disabling the topology. I actually can't see any obvious places where the racing caused by the first issue would break something, and it could be that some of our higher-level locks already prevent this by happenstance, but better safe then sorry. So, let's make it so that drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() first grabs &mgr.payload_lock followed by &mgr.lock so that we never race when modifying the payload state. Then, we also clear proposed_payloads to fix the original issue of enabling a new topology with a dirty payload state. This doesn't clear any of the drm_dp_vcpi structures, but those are getting destroyed along with the ports anyway. Changes since v1: * Use sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])/sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0]) instead - vsyrjala Cc: Sean Paul <sean(a)poorly.run> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin(a)amd.com> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # v4.4+ Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200122194321.14953-1-lyude@… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index e78c73e975ed..4104f15f4594 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -3447,6 +3447,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms int ret = 0; struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock); mutex_lock(&mgr->lock); if (mst_state == mgr->mst_state) goto out_unlock; @@ -3505,7 +3506,10 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms /* this can fail if the device is gone */ drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(mgr->aux, DP_MSTM_CTRL, 0); ret = 0; - memset(mgr->payloads, 0, mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(struct drm_dp_payload)); + memset(mgr->payloads, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])); + memset(mgr->proposed_vcpis, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0])); mgr->payload_mask = 0; set_bit(0, &mgr->payload_mask); mgr->vcpi_mask = 0; @@ -3514,6 +3518,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock); if (mstb) drm_dp_mst_topology_put_mstb(mstb); return ret;

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 8732fe46b20c951493bfc4dba0ad08efdf41de81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:43:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The issues caused by: commit 64e62bdf04ab ("drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr") Prompted me to take a closer look at how we clear the payload state in general when disabling the topology, and it turns out there's actually two subtle issues here. The first is that we're not grabbing &mgr.payload_lock when clearing the payloads in drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(). Seeing as the canonical lock order is &mgr.payload_lock -> &mgr.lock (because we always want &mgr.lock to be the inner-most lock so topology validation always works), this makes perfect sense. It also means that -technically- there could be racing between someone calling drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() to disable the topology, along with a modeset occurring that's modifying the payload state at the same time. The second is the more obvious issue that Wayne Lin discovered, that we're not clearing proposed_payloads when disabling the topology. I actually can't see any obvious places where the racing caused by the first issue would break something, and it could be that some of our higher-level locks already prevent this by happenstance, but better safe then sorry. So, let's make it so that drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() first grabs &mgr.payload_lock followed by &mgr.lock so that we never race when modifying the payload state. Then, we also clear proposed_payloads to fix the original issue of enabling a new topology with a dirty payload state. This doesn't clear any of the drm_dp_vcpi structures, but those are getting destroyed along with the ports anyway. Changes since v1: * Use sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])/sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0]) instead - vsyrjala Cc: Sean Paul <sean(a)poorly.run> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin(a)amd.com> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # v4.4+ Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200122194321.14953-1-lyude@… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index e78c73e975ed..4104f15f4594 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -3447,6 +3447,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms int ret = 0; struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock); mutex_lock(&mgr->lock); if (mst_state == mgr->mst_state) goto out_unlock; @@ -3505,7 +3506,10 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms /* this can fail if the device is gone */ drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(mgr->aux, DP_MSTM_CTRL, 0); ret = 0; - memset(mgr->payloads, 0, mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(struct drm_dp_payload)); + memset(mgr->payloads, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])); + memset(mgr->proposed_vcpis, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0])); mgr->payload_mask = 0; set_bit(0, &mgr->payload_mask); mgr->vcpi_mask = 0; @@ -3514,6 +3518,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock); if (mstb) drm_dp_mst_topology_put_mstb(mstb); return ret;

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 8732fe46b20c951493bfc4dba0ad08efdf41de81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:43:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The issues caused by: commit 64e62bdf04ab ("drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr") Prompted me to take a closer look at how we clear the payload state in general when disabling the topology, and it turns out there's actually two subtle issues here. The first is that we're not grabbing &mgr.payload_lock when clearing the payloads in drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(). Seeing as the canonical lock order is &mgr.payload_lock -> &mgr.lock (because we always want &mgr.lock to be the inner-most lock so topology validation always works), this makes perfect sense. It also means that -technically- there could be racing between someone calling drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() to disable the topology, along with a modeset occurring that's modifying the payload state at the same time. The second is the more obvious issue that Wayne Lin discovered, that we're not clearing proposed_payloads when disabling the topology. I actually can't see any obvious places where the racing caused by the first issue would break something, and it could be that some of our higher-level locks already prevent this by happenstance, but better safe then sorry. So, let's make it so that drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() first grabs &mgr.payload_lock followed by &mgr.lock so that we never race when modifying the payload state. Then, we also clear proposed_payloads to fix the original issue of enabling a new topology with a dirty payload state. This doesn't clear any of the drm_dp_vcpi structures, but those are getting destroyed along with the ports anyway. Changes since v1: * Use sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])/sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0]) instead - vsyrjala Cc: Sean Paul <sean(a)poorly.run> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin(a)amd.com> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # v4.4+ Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200122194321.14953-1-lyude@… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index e78c73e975ed..4104f15f4594 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -3447,6 +3447,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms int ret = 0; struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock); mutex_lock(&mgr->lock); if (mst_state == mgr->mst_state) goto out_unlock; @@ -3505,7 +3506,10 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms /* this can fail if the device is gone */ drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(mgr->aux, DP_MSTM_CTRL, 0); ret = 0; - memset(mgr->payloads, 0, mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(struct drm_dp_payload)); + memset(mgr->payloads, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])); + memset(mgr->proposed_vcpis, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0])); mgr->payload_mask = 0; set_bit(0, &mgr->payload_mask); mgr->vcpi_mask = 0; @@ -3514,6 +3518,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock); if (mstb) drm_dp_mst_topology_put_mstb(mstb); return ret;

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable" failed to apply to 4.9-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.9-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 8732fe46b20c951493bfc4dba0ad08efdf41de81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:43:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The issues caused by: commit 64e62bdf04ab ("drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr") Prompted me to take a closer look at how we clear the payload state in general when disabling the topology, and it turns out there's actually two subtle issues here. The first is that we're not grabbing &mgr.payload_lock when clearing the payloads in drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(). Seeing as the canonical lock order is &mgr.payload_lock -> &mgr.lock (because we always want &mgr.lock to be the inner-most lock so topology validation always works), this makes perfect sense. It also means that -technically- there could be racing between someone calling drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() to disable the topology, along with a modeset occurring that's modifying the payload state at the same time. The second is the more obvious issue that Wayne Lin discovered, that we're not clearing proposed_payloads when disabling the topology. I actually can't see any obvious places where the racing caused by the first issue would break something, and it could be that some of our higher-level locks already prevent this by happenstance, but better safe then sorry. So, let's make it so that drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() first grabs &mgr.payload_lock followed by &mgr.lock so that we never race when modifying the payload state. Then, we also clear proposed_payloads to fix the original issue of enabling a new topology with a dirty payload state. This doesn't clear any of the drm_dp_vcpi structures, but those are getting destroyed along with the ports anyway. Changes since v1: * Use sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])/sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0]) instead - vsyrjala Cc: Sean Paul <sean(a)poorly.run> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin(a)amd.com> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # v4.4+ Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200122194321.14953-1-lyude@… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index e78c73e975ed..4104f15f4594 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -3447,6 +3447,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms int ret = 0; struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock); mutex_lock(&mgr->lock); if (mst_state == mgr->mst_state) goto out_unlock; @@ -3505,7 +3506,10 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms /* this can fail if the device is gone */ drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(mgr->aux, DP_MSTM_CTRL, 0); ret = 0; - memset(mgr->payloads, 0, mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(struct drm_dp_payload)); + memset(mgr->payloads, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])); + memset(mgr->proposed_vcpis, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0])); mgr->payload_mask = 0; set_bit(0, &mgr->payload_mask); mgr->vcpi_mask = 0; @@ -3514,6 +3518,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock); if (mstb) drm_dp_mst_topology_put_mstb(mstb); return ret;

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable" failed to apply to 4.4-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 8732fe46b20c951493bfc4dba0ad08efdf41de81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:43:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] drm/dp_mst: Fix clearing payload state on topology disable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The issues caused by: commit 64e62bdf04ab ("drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr") Prompted me to take a closer look at how we clear the payload state in general when disabling the topology, and it turns out there's actually two subtle issues here. The first is that we're not grabbing &mgr.payload_lock when clearing the payloads in drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(). Seeing as the canonical lock order is &mgr.payload_lock -> &mgr.lock (because we always want &mgr.lock to be the inner-most lock so topology validation always works), this makes perfect sense. It also means that -technically- there could be racing between someone calling drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() to disable the topology, along with a modeset occurring that's modifying the payload state at the same time. The second is the more obvious issue that Wayne Lin discovered, that we're not clearing proposed_payloads when disabling the topology. I actually can't see any obvious places where the racing caused by the first issue would break something, and it could be that some of our higher-level locks already prevent this by happenstance, but better safe then sorry. So, let's make it so that drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst() first grabs &mgr.payload_lock followed by &mgr.lock so that we never race when modifying the payload state. Then, we also clear proposed_payloads to fix the original issue of enabling a new topology with a dirty payload state. This doesn't clear any of the drm_dp_vcpi structures, but those are getting destroyed along with the ports anyway. Changes since v1: * Use sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])/sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0]) instead - vsyrjala Cc: Sean Paul <sean(a)poorly.run> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin(a)amd.com> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # v4.4+ Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude(a)redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala(a)linux.intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200122194321.14953-1-lyude@… diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index e78c73e975ed..4104f15f4594 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -3447,6 +3447,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms int ret = 0; struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mgr->payload_lock); mutex_lock(&mgr->lock); if (mst_state == mgr->mst_state) goto out_unlock; @@ -3505,7 +3506,10 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms /* this can fail if the device is gone */ drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(mgr->aux, DP_MSTM_CTRL, 0); ret = 0; - memset(mgr->payloads, 0, mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(struct drm_dp_payload)); + memset(mgr->payloads, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->payloads[0])); + memset(mgr->proposed_vcpis, 0, + mgr->max_payloads * sizeof(mgr->proposed_vcpis[0])); mgr->payload_mask = 0; set_bit(0, &mgr->payload_mask); mgr->vcpi_mask = 0; @@ -3514,6 +3518,7 @@ int drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, bool ms out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mgr->payload_lock); if (mstb) drm_dp_mst_topology_put_mstb(mstb); return ret;

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rtc: max8907: add missing select REGMAP_IRQ" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From c05a31f4d1de8f49f66f499e67da9c3d745c4f19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe(a)baylibre.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:26:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] rtc: max8907: add missing select REGMAP_IRQ I have hit the following build error: armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-ld: drivers/rtc/rtc-max8907.o: in function `max8907_rtc_probe': rtc-max8907.c:(.text+0x400): undefined reference to `regmap_irq_get_virq' max8907 should select REGMAP_IRQ Fixes: 94c01ab6d7544 ("rtc: add MAX8907 RTC driver") Cc: stable <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe(a)baylibre.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1584545209-20433-1-git-send-email-clabbe@baylibre… Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni(a)bootlin.com> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig index 7d6cb60ee010..6c99156cbe57 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig @@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ config RTC_DRV_MAX6900 config RTC_DRV_MAX8907 tristate "Maxim MAX8907" depends on MFD_MAX8907 || COMPILE_TEST + select REGMAP_IRQ help If you say yes here you will get support for the RTC of Maxim MAX8907 PMIC.

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rtc: max8907: add missing select REGMAP_IRQ" failed to apply to 5.5-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.5-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From c05a31f4d1de8f49f66f499e67da9c3d745c4f19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe(a)baylibre.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:26:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] rtc: max8907: add missing select REGMAP_IRQ I have hit the following build error: armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi-ld: drivers/rtc/rtc-max8907.o: in function `max8907_rtc_probe': rtc-max8907.c:(.text+0x400): undefined reference to `regmap_irq_get_virq' max8907 should select REGMAP_IRQ Fixes: 94c01ab6d7544 ("rtc: add MAX8907 RTC driver") Cc: stable <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe(a)baylibre.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1584545209-20433-1-git-send-email-clabbe@baylibre… Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni(a)bootlin.com> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig index 7d6cb60ee010..6c99156cbe57 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig @@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ config RTC_DRV_MAX6900 config RTC_DRV_MAX8907 tristate "Maxim MAX8907" depends on MFD_MAX8907 || COMPILE_TEST + select REGMAP_IRQ help If you say yes here you will get support for the RTC of Maxim MAX8907 PMIC.

5 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Linux-stable-mirror