[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] fbcon -- fix race between open and removal of framebuffers
    On 05/10/2011 11:44 PM, Bruno Prémont wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 May 2011 Tim Gardner<> wrote:
    >> From ca3ef33e2235c88856a6257c0be63192ab56c678 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
    >> From: Andy Whitcroft<>
    >> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:48:20 +0100
    >> Subject: [PATCH] fbcon -- fix race between open and removal of framebuffers
    >> Currently there is no locking for updates to the registered_fb list.
    >> This allows an open through /dev/fbN to pick up a registered framebuffer
    >> pointer in parallel with it being released, as happens when a conflicting
    >> framebuffer is ejected or on module unload. There is also no reference
    >> counting on the framebuffer descriptor which is referenced from all open
    >> files, leading to references to released or reused memory to persist on
    >> these open files.
    >> This patch adds a reference count to the framebuffer descriptor to prevent
    >> it from being released until after all pending opens are closed. This
    >> allows the pending opens to detect the closed status and unmap themselves.
    >> It also adds locking to the framebuffer lookup path, locking it against
    >> the removal path such that it is possible to atomically lookup and take a
    >> reference to the descriptor. It also adds locking to the read and write
    >> paths which currently could access the framebuffer descriptor after it
    >> has been freed. Finally it moves the device to FBINFO_STATE_REMOVED to
    >> indicate that all access should be errored for this device.
    > What framebuffer drivers was this patch tested with? Just x86 with
    > mainstream GPU (intel/amd/nvidia KMS) in compination with vgafb/vesafb or
    > did it see some testing with other framebuffers like those from embedded
    > world?

    This patch is also in all of the armel (OMAP3/OMAP4) kernels.

    > Otherwise a much smaller (memory leaking) patch would be to just change
    > vesafb/vgafb to not free their fb_info after unregistration as was suggested
    > by Alan Cox.

    Sure, I suppose thats possible, but this is the patch that I have working.


    > This only partially protects the list and count as two concurrent
    > framebuffer registrations do still race against each other.
    > For the issue addressed by this patch I don't think it makes sense to
    > have this spinlock at all as it's only used in get_framebuffer_info()
    > and in put_framebuffer_info() and put_framebuffer_info() doesn't even
    > look at registered_fb or num_registered_fb.
    > Such a spinlock makes sense in a separate patch that really protects
    > all access to registered_fb or num_registered_fb, be it during framebuffer
    > (un)registration or during access from fbcon.

    Our goal was merely to stop the user space open/close races. I agree
    that the framebuffer registration list needs more orthogonal protection,
    but that is going to be a much larger patch.

    Tim Gardner
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-11 18:17    [W:0.022 / U:26.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site