linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:03:30 -0400
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier

Hello,

On 04/11/2016 08:19 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 11/04/16 12:46, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Hi Thierry,
>>>
>>> On 07/04/16 15:22, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Subsequent patches will need access to the parent supply from within the
>>>> set_machine_constraints() function to properly implement bypass mode. If
>>>> the parent supply hasn't been resolved by that time the voltage can't be
>>>> queried.
>>>>
>>>> Also, by making sure the supply is resolved early most of the changes in
>>>> set_machine_constraints() don't have to be undone if resolution fails.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/regulator/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>>> index 2786d251b1cc..cc0333a79924 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>>> @@ -3972,18 +3972,27 @@ regulator_register(const struct regulator_desc *regulator_desc,
>>>>  
>>>>  	dev_set_drvdata(&rdev->dev, rdev);
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (init_data && init_data->supply_regulator)
>>>> +		rdev->supply_name = init_data->supply_regulator;
>>>> +	else if (regulator_desc->supply_name)
>>>> +		rdev->supply_name = regulator_desc->supply_name;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * set_machine_constraints() needs the supply to be resolved in order
>>>> +	 * to support querying the current voltage in bypass mode. Resolve it
>>>> +	 * here to more easily handle deferred probing.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	ret = regulator_resolve_supply(rdev);
>>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>>> +		goto scrub;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Thanks for sending this. However, I think that calling
>>> regulator_resolve_supply() can cause a deadlock, because the
>>> regulator_list_mutex is held at this point and
>>> regulator_resolve_supply() calls regulator_dev_lookup() which may try to
>>> request the mutex again.
>>
>> True... I never encountered that case in my testing. I'm not sure
>> exactly why, though.
> 
> I believe that you may see it on Tegra114 [0], however, that was the
> only tegra board I have seen a deadlock here in the past.
>

I guess Thierry didn't see that error because it only happens on platforms
that do legacy (non-DT) regulators lookup. For OF registered regulators,
the lookup logic doesn't grab the regulator list mutex.

That was in fact why I didn't notice that issue introduced by my patch that
later was fixed by Jon.
 
>>> So may be we need to move this call after the call to
>>> regulator_of_get_init_data() before we acquire the mutex.
>>
>> I don't think that'll work. regulator_resolve_supply() depends on some
>> operations performed much later (such as rdev->dev.parent being set).
> 
> Hmmm ... yes I was not sure if there was something else needed.
> 
>> Perhaps moving the locking of the regulator_list_mutex down instead
>> could work. It seems to me like the first place where it would need to
>> be held is set_machine_constraints().
> 
> Yes either that or we add a variable to regulator_resolve_supply() and
> regulator_dev_lookup() that indicates if the mutex is already held.
> Moving the acquistion of mutex would be best/cleaner if that is ok.
> 
>>> Also, if we add this call, then I am wondering if we still need ...
>>>
>>> 	class_for_each_device(&regulator_class, NULL, NULL,
>>> 			      regulator_register_resolve_supply);
>>
>> Possibly not. That line was introduced to hook up existing orphan
>> regulators with their parents when they were registered, but I guess
>> since we now always defer probe if a parent isn't registered yet the
>> line would become a no-op.
> 
> OK. I added Javier to the thread as he added this so whatever we propose
> hopefully he can test as well.
>

Sure, I'll be able to test the patches on the platform where I had issues
that motivated that change. But as mentioned in the other email, I think
this patch will cause regressions on other platforms due moving the supply
resolution to registration again.

> Cheers
> Jon
> 
> [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-tegra&m=145935416701022&w=2
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America