Hi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> Thanks. Want a Reviewed-By: or Acked-By: added?
Oh, sure:
Reviewed-by: David Herrmann
Thanks
David
On 03/28/2014 12:23 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> The master management was previously protected by the
>> drm_device::struct_mutex.
>> In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
>> security check in
Hi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> The master management was previously protected by the
> drm_device::struct_mutex.
> In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
> security check in the vmwgfx driver, break it out into a separate
> master
On 03/28/2014 01:19 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> I also don't quite understand why you move the struct_mutex locking
> into drm_master_destroy() instead of requiring callers to lock it as
> before? I mean, the whole function is protected by the lock..
Before, struct_mutex was required ou
The master management was previously protected by the drm_device::struct_mutex.
In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
security check in the vmwgfx driver, break it out into a separate master_mutex.
Locking order is master_mutex -> struct_mutex.
Also remove drm_mas
Hi, again!
I've looked through the code again and have some answers to your
questions. Will post an updated patch soon.
On 03/28/2014 01:19 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> The master management was previously protected by the
>>
Hi, David.
Thanks for reviewing.
I'll try to address all your concerns and resend.
/Thomas
On 03/28/2014 01:19 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> The master management was previously protected by the
>> drm_device::struct_mutex.
>
Hi
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> The master management was previously protected by the
> drm_device::struct_mutex.
> In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
> security check in the vmwgfx driver, break it out into a separate
> master
Hi
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
>> - Why don't add a spin-lock to "drm_file" instead? Use that one to
>> manage master contexts, but keep "struct_mutex" whenever calling into
>> driver callbacks (set_master/drop_master)
>
> See above. We can't have a lock in the drm_
The master management was previously protected by the drm_device::struct_mutex.
In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
security check in the vmwgfx driver, break it out into a separate master_mutex.
Also remove drm_master::blocked since it's not used.
v2: Add an i
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:40:18PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 08:08 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> > "struct_mutex" is used to serialize all entry-points into
> > the drm-device (and thus the driver) and also, often implicitly, as
> > spin-lock for "struct drm_device" data protecti
On 03/26/2014 08:08 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> The master management was previously protected by the
>> drm_device::struct_mutex.
>> In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
>> security check in
Hi
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> The master management was previously protected by the
> drm_device::struct_mutex.
> In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
> security check in the vmwgfx driver, break it out into a separate
> master
The master management was previously protected by the drm_device::struct_mutex.
In order to avoid locking order violations in a reworked dropped master
security check in the vmwgfx driver, break it out into a separate master_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom
Reviewed-by: Brian Paul
---
dri
14 matches
Mail list logo
