We link every DRM "file_priv" to a "drm_master" structure. Currently, the drmSetMaster() call returns 0 when there is _any_ active master associated with the "drm_master" structure of the calling "file_priv". This means, that after drmSetMaster() we are not guaranteed to be DRM-Master and might not be able to perform mode-setting.
A way to reproduce this is by starting weston with the DRM backend from within an X-console (eg., xterm). Because the xserver's "drm_master" is currently active, weston is assigned to the same master but is inactive because its VT is inactive and the xserver is still active. But when "fake-activating" weston, it calls drmSetMaster(). With current behavior this returns "0/success" and weston thinks that it is DRM-Master, even though it is not (as the xserver is still DRM-Master). Expected behavior would be drmSetMaster() to return -EINVAL, because the xserver is still DRM-Master. This patch changes exactly that.
The only way this bogus behavior would be useful is for clients to check whether their associated "drm_master" is currently the active DRM-Master. But this logic fails if no DRM-Master is currently active at all. Because then the client itself would become DRM-Master (if it is root) and this makes this whole thing useles.
Also note that the second "if-condition": file_priv->minor->master != file_priv->master is always true and can be skipped.
Signed-off-by: David Herrmann dh.herrmann@googlemail.com --- Note: Note that this only removes the "if-clause". The code that performs the setmaster() is actually left unchanged but makes the patch look scarier than it really is.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c index c236fd2..581e61d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c @@ -221,20 +221,20 @@ int drm_setmaster_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, if (!file_priv->master) return -EINVAL;
- if (!file_priv->minor->master && - file_priv->minor->master != file_priv->master) { - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); - file_priv->minor->master = drm_master_get(file_priv->master); - file_priv->is_master = 1; - if (dev->driver->master_set) { - ret = dev->driver->master_set(dev, file_priv, false); - if (unlikely(ret != 0)) { - file_priv->is_master = 0; - drm_master_put(&file_priv->minor->master); - } + if (file_priv->minor->master) + return -EINVAL; + + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); + file_priv->minor->master = drm_master_get(file_priv->master); + file_priv->is_master = 1; + if (dev->driver->master_set) { + ret = dev->driver->master_set(dev, file_priv, false); + if (unlikely(ret != 0)) { + file_priv->is_master = 0; + drm_master_put(&file_priv->minor->master); } - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); } + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
return 0; }
Hi David,
Would you have time to document the master_set operation in Documentation/DocBook/drm.tmpl ? :-)
On Sunday 07 October 2012 19:53:26 David Herrmann wrote:
We link every DRM "file_priv" to a "drm_master" structure. Currently, the drmSetMaster() call returns 0 when there is _any_ active master associated with the "drm_master" structure of the calling "file_priv". This means, that after drmSetMaster() we are not guaranteed to be DRM-Master and might not be able to perform mode-setting.
A way to reproduce this is by starting weston with the DRM backend from within an X-console (eg., xterm). Because the xserver's "drm_master" is currently active, weston is assigned to the same master but is inactive because its VT is inactive and the xserver is still active. But when "fake-activating" weston, it calls drmSetMaster(). With current behavior this returns "0/success" and weston thinks that it is DRM-Master, even though it is not (as the xserver is still DRM-Master). Expected behavior would be drmSetMaster() to return -EINVAL, because the xserver is still DRM-Master. This patch changes exactly that.
The only way this bogus behavior would be useful is for clients to check whether their associated "drm_master" is currently the active DRM-Master. But this logic fails if no DRM-Master is currently active at all. Because then the client itself would become DRM-Master (if it is root) and this makes this whole thing useles.
Also note that the second "if-condition": file_priv->minor->master != file_priv->master is always true and can be skipped.
Signed-off-by: David Herrmann dh.herrmann@googlemail.com
Note: Note that this only removes the "if-clause". The code that performs the setmaster() is actually left unchanged but makes the patch look scarier than it really is.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c index c236fd2..581e61d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_stub.c @@ -221,20 +221,20 @@ int drm_setmaster_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, if (!file_priv->master) return -EINVAL;
- if (!file_priv->minor->master &&
file_priv->minor->master != file_priv->master) {
mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
file_priv->minor->master = drm_master_get(file_priv->master);
file_priv->is_master = 1;
if (dev->driver->master_set) {
ret = dev->driver->master_set(dev, file_priv, false);
if (unlikely(ret != 0)) {
file_priv->is_master = 0;
drm_master_put(&file_priv->minor->master);
}
- if (file_priv->minor->master)
return -EINVAL;
- mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
- file_priv->minor->master = drm_master_get(file_priv->master);
- file_priv->is_master = 1;
- if (dev->driver->master_set) {
ret = dev->driver->master_set(dev, file_priv, false);
if (unlikely(ret != 0)) {
file_priv->is_master = 0;
}drm_master_put(&file_priv->minor->master);
}mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
return 0;
}
Hi Laurent
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com wrote:
Hi David,
Would you have time to document the master_set operation in Documentation/DocBook/drm.tmpl ? :-)
I have actually some drafts for "drmSetMaster/drmDropMaster" man-pages for libdrm on my machine. However, I am still waiting for my other man-pages being applied to libdrm (they're pending on the list).
The drmSetMaster() man-page does explain the DRM-Master mess in all detail, so I'd like to wait for this being reviewed before adding the same information to kernel-docbook (if that is required at all).
Regards David
Hi David,
On Thursday 11 October 2012 12:41:43 David Herrmann wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi David,
Would you have time to document the master_set operation in Documentation/DocBook/drm.tmpl ? :-)
I have actually some drafts for "drmSetMaster/drmDropMaster" man-pages for libdrm on my machine. However, I am still waiting for my other man-pages being applied to libdrm (they're pending on the list).
The drmSetMaster() man-page does explain the DRM-Master mess in all detail, so I'd like to wait for this being reviewed before adding the same information to kernel-docbook
Sure, there's no rush.
(if that is required at all).
The DocBook documentation (currently) documents the in-kernel APIs only and mostly serves as a document for driver developers. It's currently missing documentation for the master_set operation, so it would be nice if you could add that.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org