Dumpsys utility accesses layer compositionType variable
with out proper protection. These variables are modified
during hwc_prepare call. Existing HAL lock protection is not
sufficient to address this issue. Failure to do this will
result in incorrect state reporting in dumpsys.
A new displayLock mutex in HWComposer will be used in both
dumpsys and draw calls to ensure correct state is accessed.
Change-Id: I8a57de59525adc0e089b3bed95c067c01e42b666
(cherry picked from commit e54506b81a)
Dumpsys utility accesses layer compositionType variable
with out proper protection. These variables are modified
during hwc_prepare call. Existing HAL lock protection is not
sufficient to address this issue. Failure to do this will
result in incorrect state reporting in dumpsys.
A new displayLock mutex in HWComposer will be used in both
dumpsys and draw calls to ensure correct state is accessed.
Change-Id: I8a57de59525adc0e089b3bed95c067c01e42b666
Validate the display binder by adding a NULL check in getDisplayConfigs.
This will prevent a false match if the caller queries the display
configs for an inactive display (whose binder is NULL by default).
Without this change we might end up attempting to index the display
config array, which is unpopulated for inactive displays, and this will
result in a crash. (See getDisplayInfo in SurfaceComposerClient.cpp for
an example of this scenario)
Change-Id: Ib32a7dc8378d3438df0dba1ecd608bbcfc837717
Validate the display binder by adding a NULL check in getDisplayConfigs.
This will prevent a false match if the caller queries the display
configs for an inactive display (whose binder is NULL by default).
Without this change we might end up attempting to index the display
config array, which is unpopulated for inactive displays, and this will
result in a crash. (See getDisplayInfo in SurfaceComposerClient.cpp for
an example of this scenario)
Change-Id: I1a12f43b7c375b9c01998dadd5b658275c733fb2
(cherry picked from commit ac71c26e9180d9d181be5ec9e45da72d39144a8b)
When we have excess pixels that need to be removed from (for example)
the left and right sides, we currently do something like:
left += excess / 2;
right -= excess / 2;
If excess is odd, however, this removes 1 too few pixels since the odd
pixel gets rounded down twice. This changes the math to effectively:
left += excess / 2;
right -= (excess - excess / 2);
Which removes the correct total number of pixels.
Bug: 19611086
Change-Id: I8d1ad9fe7ba67c149794c148663d12acbccccef0
(cherry picked from commit ec4cb38750)
Swaps width and height when capturing a screenshot that is rotated by
90 or 270 degrees.
Bug: 8433742
Change-Id: Ibf0b604f541e3cc271e56fe0ad04dc366beb5d79
(cherry picked from commit 3502416204)
When we have excess pixels that need to be removed from (for example)
the left and right sides, we currently do something like:
left += excess / 2;
right -= excess / 2;
If excess is odd, however, this removes 1 too few pixels since the odd
pixel gets rounded down twice. This changes the math to effectively:
left += excess / 2;
right -= (excess - excess / 2);
Which removes the correct total number of pixels.
Bug: 19611086
Change-Id: I8d1ad9fe7ba67c149794c148663d12acbccccef0
Swaps width and height when capturing a screenshot that is rotated by
90 or 270 degrees.
Bug: 8433742
Change-Id: Ibf0b604f541e3cc271e56fe0ad04dc366beb5d79
