[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170409093323.4b122af1@bbrezillon>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:33:23 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
Graham Moore <grmoore@...nsource.altera.com>,
Enrico Jorns <ejo@...gutronix.de>,
Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 33/37] mtd: nand: allocate aligned buffers if
NAND_OWN_BUFFERS is unset
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:49:23 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Leonard,
>
> 2017-04-06 23:08 GMT+09:00 Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some NAND controllers are using DMA engine requiring a specific
> >> buffer alignment. The core provides no guarantee on the nand_buffers
> >> pointers, which forces some drivers to allocate their own buffers
> >> and pass the NAND_OWN_BUFFERS flag.
> >>
> >> Rework the nand_buffers allocation logic to allocate each buffer
> >> independently. This should make most NAND controllers/DMA engine
> >> happy, and allow us to get rid of these custom buf allocation in
> >> NAND controller drivers.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
> >
> >> @@ -4914,8 +4930,12 @@ void nand_cleanup(struct nand_chip *chip)
> >> > /* Free bad block table memory */
> >> kfree(chip->bbt);
> >> - if (!(chip->options & NAND_OWN_BUFFERS))
> >> + if (!(chip->options & NAND_OWN_BUFFERS)) {
> >> + kfree(chip->buffers->databuf);
> >> + kfree(chip->buffers->ecccode);
> >> + kfree(chip->buffers->ecccalc);
> >> kfree(chip->buffers);
> >> + }
> >
> > It seems that chip->buffers might not be allocated at this point, for
> > example if nand_cleanup is called during a failed probe. You should
> > check if (chip->buffers != NULL) before freeing stuff inside it.
>
> You are right.
>
> The failure path in NAND drivers is messy. :-(
Totally agree, and that's partly because of the complex/non-trivial
NAND APIs :-/.
> nand_cleanup() may be called before nand_scan_tail()
> finishes successfully...
Actually, I think the real bug is in the GPMI driver which is not using
nand_release() appropriately. nand_release() is supposed to be called
on a registered NAND device, so it's wrong to call it before
mtd_register() has been called and returned 0.
Note that nand_cleanup() can only be called after nand_scan_tail() has
returned 0 (which unfortunately is not obvious :-/).
I still plan to take Masahiro's fixup patch because the more
precautions we take the better it is, but I still think the real bug is
in the GPMI driver.
One last comment: a bug still exists in the GPMI driver when
nand_scan_ident() fails after NAND buffers allocation because it never
sets chip->buffers back to NULL (see [1]).
[1]http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c#L4834
Powered by blists - more mailing lists