linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] pwm: Add support for Meson PWM Controller

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]

Message-ID: <1473163880.7003.5.camel@baylibre.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Sep 2016 14:11:20 +0200
From:   jbrunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Cc:     carlo@...one.org, khilman@...libre.com, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] pwm: Add support for Meson PWM Controller

On Tue, 2016-09-06 at 12:04 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:14:45AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > 
> > On 09/06/2016 11:07 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Thierry,
> > > > 
> > [...]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The second bug is in probe(), I understand the point to
> > > > allocate
> > > > dynamically the channels and attach them to each pwm chip, but
> > > > when
> > > > calling meson_pwm_init_channels() we get an OOPS because
> > > > meson->chip.pwms[i] are allocated in pwmchip_add(). Moving
> > > > meson_pwm_init_channels() would fix this, but in case of a clk
> > > > PROBE_DEFER, we would need to remove back the pwmchip, which is
> > > > a
> > > > quite a bad design decision....
> > > 
> > > Ah yes... that one again. I remember running into that a while
> > > ago with
> > > some other driver. To be honest, I think that's a short-coming of
> > > the
> > > PWM subsystem and the fix would be for PWM chip registration to
> > > be split
> > > into two parts: pwm_chip_init() and pwm_chip_add(). That way, a
> > > chip
> > > would be initialized using pwm_chip_init() where the pwms array
> > > would be
> > > allocated, and pwm_chip_add() would register the chip with the
> > > system.
> > > 
> > > Currently a few drivers might be vulnerable to a race condition
> > > between
> > > registration and implementation (i.e. PWM channels aren't fully
> > > set up
> > > when they are exposed to users and sysfs).
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The smartest fix I found was to allocate channels in probe,
> > > > init them
> > > > them attach them after pwmchip_add():
> > > > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's the race I was talking about above. I suppose it's not too
> > > big an
> > > issue since other drivers seem to manage, so I'm going to merge
> > > your
> > > fixed driver.
> > 
> > ok thanks !
> 
> I've made a few tiny changes (reg -> offset, temporary variable to
> track
> &channels[i], ...) and pushed it all out. Hopefully that now fixes
> any
> of the remaining issues.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Unless you feel like taking a stab at the
> > > pwm_chip_init()/pwm_chip_add()
> > > split, in which case your driver would be the first to be race-
> > > free. =)
> > 
> > Having he driver upstream is a priority, but having it completely
> > race-free would be great! I'll be happy to collaborate to a race-
> > free
> > pwmchip probe somehow !
> 
> Fair enough. I'll do some prototyping and keep you in the loop if I
> come
> up with something that I think will do.
> 
> Thierry

Hi Thierry,

I have tested the latest version on the P200 (S905), channels E and F.
It works as expected.

Regards

Tested-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>