[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905161644350.3301@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc6: Reported regressions from 2.6.29
On Sat, 16 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13326
> Subject : Null pointer dereference in rtc-cmos driver
> Submitter : Ozan Çağlayan <ozan@...dus.org.tr>
> Date : 2009-05-14 16:16 (3 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124231783704696&w=4
Ok, I'm of two minds on this one.
The thing that triggers it is a module that is both a module _and_
compiled in (ie the same kernel compiled twice, and the stale module kept
around). I can see how it happens, and we should react more gracefully to
it, but at the same time I can't really bring myself to care deeply.
What is going on is that the cmos-rtc.c driver does this:
#ifdef CONFIG_PNP
pnp_register_driver(&cmos_pnp_driver);
#endif
if (!cmos_rtc.dev)
retval = platform_driver_probe(&cmos_platform_driver,
cmos_platform_probe);
if (retval == 0)
return 0;
#ifdef CONFIG_PNP
pnp_unregister_driver(&cmos_pnp_driver);
#endif
return retval;
and what happens is that the pnp_register_driver fails when the module
calls it (because the built-in driver already exists under the same name):
[ 10.428691] Error: Driver 'rtc_cmos' is already registered, aborting...
but the driver doesn't really care whether that succeeded or not, but then
the platform_driver_probe fails (because the thing is already in use), so
then it ends up unregistering something that never got registered in the
first place.
I think this is strictly speaking a bug in driver_unregister(), which is
too fragile. If you unregister a drivert that wasn't registered, we
shouldn't oops.
But we could certainly do it at the rtc-cmos.c level too, and just not
unregister it if the registration failed. My gut feel is that we should
aim for the core driver helpers to be less fragile, though - we'll always
have driver bugs.
Greg?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists