linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim

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: <3581108.InxQuoaF8Q@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2016 02:19:22 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform: Print the resource range if device failed to claim

[CC Mika and linux-acpi]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 05:24:55 PM Chen Yu wrote:
> Sometimes we have the following error message:
>  platform MSFT0101:00: failed to claim resource 1
>  acpi MSFT0101:00: platform device creation failed: -16
> But there is not enough information to figure out which resource range
> failed to claim.
> 
> Thus print the resource range at first-place thus /proc/iomem or
> ioports should tell us who already claimed this resource, then
> the driver bug or incorrect resource assignment which is running
> into this conflict can be diagnosed:
>  platform MSFT0101:00: failed to claim resource 1: [mem 0xfed40000-0xfed40fff]
>  acpi MSFT0101:00: platform device creation failed: -16
> 
> Suggested-by: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> Reported-by: Wendy Wang <wendy.wang@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/platform.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> index c4af003..22a6430 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> @@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ int platform_device_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		}
>  
>  		if (p && insert_resource(p, r)) {
> -			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to claim resource %d\n", i);
> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to claim resource %d: %pR\n", i, r);

Do we still need the resource number?

>  			ret = -EBUSY;
>  			goto failed;
>  		}
> 

Thanks,
Rafael