[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160718224743.01b4a330@endymion>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:47:43 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Andrew Duggan <aduggan@...aptics.com>,
Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] i2c-smbus: add SMBus Host Notify support
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:35:19 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Jul 18 2016 or thereabouts, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > But what happens on i2c_adapter removal? What prevents the following
> > sequence from happening?
> >
> > 1* A Host Notify event happens.
> > 2* The event is handled and queued by i2c_handle_smbus_host_notify().
> > 3* Someone tears down the underlying i2c_adapter (for example "rmmod
> > i2c-i801".)
> > 4* The workqueue is processed, accessing memory which has already been
> > freed.
> >
> > Of course it would be back luck, but that's pretty much the definition
> > of a race condition ;-)
>
> Yes, you are right :(
> Sorry for not doing things properly :/
No worry. Bugs happen everywhere, we find them and fix them. That's
part of the process. If we only submit patches which we are 100%
certain are perfect, we never submit anything. I know something about
that...
> > To be on the safe side, don't we need a teardown function in i2c-smbus,
> > that could be called before i2c_del_adapter, which would remove the
> > host notify handle and flush the workqueue?
>
> I was thinking at adding a devm action on the release of the struct
> smbus_host_notify, but it's actually a bad idea because some other
> resources (children moslty) might already be released when the devres
> action will be called.
>
> I think it might be easier to add a i2c_remove_host_notify() (or such)
> which would make sure we call the cancel_work_sync() function. It would
> be the responsibility of the caller to call it once
> i2c_setup_smbus_host_notify() has been called. I'd say it has the
> advantage of not adding any hidden data in the adapter to the cost of a
> small pain in the adapter driver.
That's what I had in mind as well, but I'm open to any option which
solves the problem really.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
Powered by blists - more mailing lists