drm: inhibit drm drivers register to uninitialized drm core
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 drm: inhibit drm drivers register to uninitialized drm core
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls drm_dev_register().
This is best done at drm_dev_init() as it covers drivers that call drm_dev_alloc() as well as drivers that prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device struct and call drm_dev_init() themselves.
In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling debugfs_remove() on drm_debugfs_root in drm_core_exit().
After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading to drm_debugfs_init(), with drm_debugfs_root passed as the root for the new debugfs dir at debugfs_create_dir().
This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing root->d_inode while it was NULL or calling root->d_inode->i_op->lookup() while it was NULL in debugfs at inode_lock() or lookup_*().
--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +16 -0
@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"
@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;
@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error; + drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;
Signature · 1 line
2.13.2
Quoted 59 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling
drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading todrm_debugfs_init(), withdrm_debugfs_rootpassed as the root for the new debugfs dir atdebugfs_create_dir().This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing
root->d_inodewhile it was NULL or callingroot->d_inode->i_op->lookup()while it was NULL in debugfs atinode_lock()or lookup_*().Signed-off-by Alexandru Moise <[email protected]>--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +14
-0@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c static int __init drm_core_init(void) · line 986
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +2
-0@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error; + drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;
Isn't the correct fix to pass down the error value, which iirc should make the kmod stuff unload the module again? Or does this not work' -Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Quoted 63 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 62 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling
drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading todrm_debugfs_init(), withdrm_debugfs_rootpassed as the root for the new debugfs dir atdebugfs_create_dir().This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing
root->d_inodewhile it was NULL or callingroot->d_inode->i_op->lookup()while it was NULL in debugfs atinode_lock()or lookup_*().Signed-off-by Alexandru Moise <[email protected]>--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +14
-0@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error;
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c static int __init drm_core_init(void) · line 986
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +2
-0+ drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;Isn't the correct fix to pass down the error value, which iirc should make the kmod stuff unload the module again? Or does this not work' -Daniel
What if everything is built in?
../Alex
Quoted 4 lines
Signature · 3 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
Quoted 73 lines · Alexandru Moise
Quoted 63 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 62 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling
drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading todrm_debugfs_init(), withdrm_debugfs_rootpassed as the root for the new debugfs dir atdebugfs_create_dir().This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing
root->d_inodewhile it was NULL or callingroot->d_inode->i_op->lookup()while it was NULL in debugfs atinode_lock()or lookup_*().Signed-off-by Alexandru Moise <[email protected]>--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +14
-0@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error;Quoted 8 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c static int __init drm_core_init(void) · line 986
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +2
-0+ drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;Isn't the correct fix to pass down the error value, which iirc should make the kmod stuff unload the module again? Or does this not work' -Daniel
Quoted 1 line
What if everything is built in?
I feared that would be the answer :-/ Still feels funny that everyone will need to hand-roll this, or does everyone simply assume that their subsystem's module_init never fails?
Adding a pile of kmod and driver folks in the hopes of getting a better answer. If there's no better answer pls remind me to merge your patch in 1-2 weeks, I'll likely forget ...
-Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Quoted 77 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 73 lines · Alexandru Moise
Quoted 63 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 62 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling
drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading todrm_debugfs_init(), withdrm_debugfs_rootpassed as the root for the new debugfs dir atdebugfs_create_dir().This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing
root->d_inodewhile it was NULL or callingroot->d_inode->i_op->lookup()while it was NULL in debugfs atinode_lock()or lookup_*().Signed-off-by Alexandru Moise <[email protected]>--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +14
-0@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error;Quoted 8 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c static int __init drm_core_init(void) · line 986
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +2
-0+ drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;Isn't the correct fix to pass down the error value, which iirc should make the kmod stuff unload the module again? Or does this not work' -Daniel
Quoted 1 line
What if everything is built in?
Quoted 8 lines
I feared that would be the answer :-/ Still feels funny that everyone will need to hand-roll this, or does everyone simply assume that their subsystem's
module_initnever fails?Adding a pile of kmod and driver folks in the hopes of getting a better answer. If there's no better answer pls remind me to merge your patch in 1-2 weeks, I'll likely forget ...
-Daniel
I took a look at all the DRM drivers and they all seem pretty sane, they all handle the case of the DRM core failure, the fault is clearly on the DRM core side, it makes absolutely no sense trying to register with a subsystem that failed to init.
This is certainly not a subsystem I am intimately acquainted with however, I just stumbled on this crash while working with debugfs.
Most of the DRM core code looks pretty solid, and this is a relatively small corner-case, I believe most people out there won't be eating up that many major numbers. But I believe it's still the Right Thing™ to do.
It might save some headaches in the future as DRM becomes more complex.
../Alex
Quoted 4 lines
Signature · 3 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Quoted 92 lines · Alexandru Moise
Quoted 77 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 73 lines · Alexandru Moise
Quoted 63 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 62 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling
drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading todrm_debugfs_init(), withdrm_debugfs_rootpassed as the root for the new debugfs dir atdebugfs_create_dir().This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing
root->d_inodewhile it was NULL or callingroot->d_inode->i_op->lookup()while it was NULL in debugfs atinode_lock()or lookup_*().Signed-off-by Alexandru Moise <[email protected]>--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +14
-0@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error;Quoted 8 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c static int __init drm_core_init(void) · line 986
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +2
-0+ drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;Isn't the correct fix to pass down the error value, which iirc should make the kmod stuff unload the module again? Or does this not work' -Daniel
Quoted 1 line
What if everything is built in?
Quoted 8 lines
I feared that would be the answer :-/ Still feels funny that everyone will need to hand-roll this, or does everyone simply assume that their subsystem's
module_initnever fails?Adding a pile of kmod and driver folks in the hopes of getting a better answer. If there's no better answer pls remind me to merge your patch in 1-2 weeks, I'll likely forget ...
-DanielI took a look at all the DRM drivers and they all seem pretty sane, they all handle the case of the DRM core failure, the fault is clearly on the DRM core side, it makes absolutely no sense trying to register with a subsystem that failed to init.
Quoted 8 lines
This is certainly not a subsystem I am intimately acquainted with however, I just stumbled on this crash while working with debugfs.
Most of the DRM core code looks pretty solid, and this is a relatively small corner-case, I believe most people out there won't be eating up that many major numbers. But I believe it's still the Right Thing™ to do.
It might save some headaches in the future as DRM becomes more complex.
I'm not worried about drm or drm drivers here, I'm just wondered how all the other subystems handle this same problem. Pretty sure we're not the only ones who register a chardev block in the core subsystem module (and sysfs classes, and tons of other stuff), and then drivers would fall over if that's not there. Having to open code a $foo_init_successful everywhere seems somewhat silly.
-Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 10 lines · Alexandru Moise
Quoted 9 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 8 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().
Note, there are patches in my "to-apply" queue to prevent that from happening, that should show up in 4.14-rc1. So that shouldn't be an issue in the future.
Quoted 3 lines
I feared that would be the answer :-/ Still feels funny that everyone will need to hand-roll this, or does everyone simply assume that their subsystem's
module_initnever fails?
How would we not "hand-roll" this? Every subsystem works a bit differently. But if you can think of a way to make this generic, that would be great...
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 22 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 10 lines · Alexandru Moise
Quoted 9 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 8 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().Note, there are patches in my "to-apply" queue to prevent that from happening, that should show up in 4.14-rc1. So that shouldn't be an issue in the future.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I feared that would be the answer :-/ Still feels funny that everyone will need to hand-roll this, or does everyone simply assume that their subsystem's
module_initnever fails?How would we not "hand-roll" this? Every subsystem works a bit differently. But if you can think of a way to make this generic, that would be great...
Well there's so much almost-magic helper/support code that very often just asking the right people gives me the answer. Sounds like this is a case where we haven't yet invented that magic, and I don't have a bright idea either. I'll Apply Alex' patch.
Thanks, Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Quoted 17 lines · Alexandru Moise
If the DRM core fails to init for whatever reason, ensure that no driver ever calls
drm_dev_register().This is best done at
drm_dev_init()as it covers drivers that calldrm_dev_alloc()as well as drivers that prefer to embed structdrm_deviceinto their own device struct and calldrm_dev_init()themselves.In my case I had so many dynamic device majors used that the major number for DRM (226) was stolen, causing DRM core init to fail after failing to register a chrdev, and ultimately calling
debugfs_remove()ondrm_debugfs_rootindrm_core_exit().After drm core failed to init, VGEM was still calling
drm_dev_register(), ultimately leading todrm_debugfs_init(), withdrm_debugfs_rootpassed as the root for the new debugfs dir atdebugfs_create_dir().
Quoted 5 lines
This led to a kernel panic once we were either derefencing
root->d_inodewhile it was NULL or callingroot->d_inode->i_op->lookup()while it was NULL in debugfs atinode_lock()or lookup_*().Signed-off-by Alexandru Moise <[email protected]>
Applied to drm-misc-next for 4.14. Since Greg has a pach in 4.13 already for the chardev issue it feels like this isn't justified for pushing through -rc/stable kernels since too much a corner-case of a bug (it exists since decades after all).
Thanks, Daniel
Quoted 52 lines
--- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c +16
-0@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ module_param_named(debug, drm_debug, int, 0600);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (drm_minor_lock);static struct idr drm_minors_idr; +/* +* If the drm core fails to init for whatever reason, +* we should prevent any drivers from registering with it. +* It's best to check this at drm_dev_init(), as some drivers +* prefer to embed struct drm_device into their own device +* structure and call drm_dev_init() themselves. +*/ +static bool drm_core_init_complete = false; +static struct dentry *drm_debugfs_root;#define DRM_PRINTK_FMT "[" DRM_NAME ":%s]%s %pV"@@ -484,6 +493,11 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev, {int ret; +if (!drm_core_init_complete) { +DRM_ERROR ("DRM core is not initialized\n" ); +return -ENODEV ; + } +kref_init (&dev->ref); dev->dev = parent; dev->driver = driver;@@ -966,6 +980,8 @@ static int __init drm_core_init(void)if (ret <0 ) goto error; + drm_core_init_complete = true; +DRM_DEBUG ("Initialized\n" );return 0 ;Signature · 6 lines
2.13.2 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel