Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1238378
| From | Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/gma500: fix double freeing |
| Date | 2015-10-02 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qfaUy-7QI-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q6N8L-3wZ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qch69-7ye-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe38K-7J7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qeiUa-53l-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qePwK-2pD-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:07:33PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Sudip Mukherjee > <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:20:35PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Sudip Mukherjee > >> <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:20:40PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > >> >> If backing->stolen is true then we were freeing backing by calling > >> >> psb_gtt_free_range() but we called it again after unlocking the mutex. > >> >> Lets make it NULL after freeing in psb_gtt_free_range() and check for > >> >> NULL before calling the function for the second time. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@vectorindia.org> > >> >> --- > >> > Hi Patrik, > >> > A gentle ping. > >> > > >> > regards > >> > sudip > >> > >> Hi, sorry for the late reply. > >> > >> Why are we freeing the range twice in the first case? > > I think, > > if backing->stolen is true then backing is released using > > psb_gtt_free_range() but if backing->stolen is false then the gem object > > is freed but the backing is not yet freed. To free that backing > > psb_gtt_free_range() has been called second time. My patch tried to fix > > the possibility of backing->stolen being true and backing being freed 2 > > times. > > > > regards > > sudip > > There are some special handling of the stolen framebuffer that I don't > remember entirely but the basic concept is that we free the backing > when we drop the last reference on a gem object. That will trigger a > psb_gtt_free_range(). So in this case it looks to me that the extra > free is not needed at all. That's my quick reasoning, feel free to > prove me wrong :) In this case we are allocating backing using psbfb_alloc() and so backing->stolen is always true. So we can remove the backing->stolen condition. And if drm_fb_helper_alloc_fbi() fails then we are jumping to out_err1. So the fitst free will not be needed. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c index 2eaf1b3..932f07b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/framebuffer.c @@ -466,11 +466,6 @@ static int psbfb_create(struct psb_fbdev *fbdev, mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); return 0; out_unref: - if (backing->stolen) - psb_gtt_free_range(dev, backing); - else - drm_gem_object_unreference(&backing->gem); - drm_fb_helper_release_fbi(&fbdev->psb_fb_helper); out_err1: mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); If it is ok, I can submit the v2. regards sudip -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] drm/gma500: fix double freeing Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] drm/gma500: fix double freeing Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] drm/gma500: fix double freeing Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 08:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] drm/gma500: fix double freeing Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] drm/gma500: fix double freeing Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 18:00 +0200
csiph-web