[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181006061341.GC12063@builder>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 23:13:41 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>,
Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] remoteproc: Fix unbalanced boot with sysfs for no
auto-boot rprocs
On Fri 14 Sep 17:37 PDT 2018, Suman Anna wrote:
> The remoteproc core performs automatic boot and shutdown of a remote
> processor during rproc_add() and rproc_del() for remote processors
> supporting 'auto-boot'. The remoteproc devices not using 'auto-boot'
> require either a remoteproc client driver or a userspace client to
> use the sysfs 'state' variable to perform the boot and shutdown. The
> in-kernel client drivers hold the corresponding remoteproc driver
> module's reference count when they acquire a rproc handle through
> the rproc_get_by_phandle() API, but there is no such support for
> userspace applications performing the boot through sysfs interface.
>
> The shutdown of a remoteproc upon removing a remoteproc platform
> driver is automatic only with 'auto-boot' and this can cause a
> remoteproc with no auto-boot to stay powered on and never freed
> up if booted using the sysfs interface without a matching stop,
> and when the remoteproc driver module is removed or unbound from
> the device. This will result in a memory leak as well as the
> corresponding remoteproc ida being never deallocated. Fix this
> by holding a module reference count for the remoteproc's driver
> during a sysfs 'start' and releasing it during the sysfs 'stop'
> operation.
>
This prevents you from rmmod'ing the remoteproc driver, but it does not
prevent you from issuing an unbind of the driver - resulting in the same
issue.
I would prefer if we made sure that rproc_del() always cleaned up any
resources (and stopped the remoteproc processor), but I'm uncertain of
how to deal with remote processors that are supposed to survive Linux
shutting down.
But I'm also uncertain how we can make the remoteproc core ensure that
no dynamic resources are leaked in such scenario.
Regards,
Bjorn
> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c
> index 47be411400e5..2142b3ea726e 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> * GNU General Public License for more details.
> */
>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>
> #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
> @@ -100,14 +101,27 @@ static ssize_t state_store(struct device *dev,
> if (rproc->state == RPROC_RUNNING)
> return -EBUSY;
>
> + /*
> + * prevent underlying implementation from being removed
> + * when remoteproc does not support auto-boot
> + */
> + if (!rproc->auto_boot &&
> + !try_module_get(dev->parent->driver->owner))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> ret = rproc_boot(rproc);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Boot failed: %d\n", ret);
> + if (!rproc->auto_boot)
> + module_put(dev->parent->driver->owner);
> + }
> } else if (sysfs_streq(buf, "stop")) {
> if (rproc->state != RPROC_RUNNING)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> rproc_shutdown(rproc);
> + if (!rproc->auto_boot)
> + module_put(dev->parent->driver->owner);
> } else {
> dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Unrecognised option: %s\n", buf);
> ret = -EINVAL;
> --
> 2.18.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists