[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b9db5ad-0edf-091b-a04e-a8f3a6ac08e2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:09:02 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com
Cc: wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andrianov@...ras.ru,
ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: watchdog: rdc321x_wdt: Fix race condition bugs
On 8/7/2020 12:08 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 8/7/20 11:08 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/7/2020 9:21 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 04:59:02PM +0530, madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com wrote:
>>>> From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> In rdc321x_wdt_probe(), rdc321x_wdt_device.queue is initialized
>>>> after misc_register(), hence if ioctl is called before its
>>>> initialization which can call rdc321x_wdt_start() function,
>>>> it will see an uninitialized value of rdc321x_wdt_device.queue,
>>>> hence initialize it before misc_register().
>>>> Also, rdc321x_wdt_device.default_ticks is accessed in reset()
>>>> function called from write callback, thus initialize it before
>>>> misc_register().
>>>>
>>>> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>>
>>> Having said that ... this is yet another potentially obsolete driver.
>>> You are really wasting your (and, fwiw, my) time.
>>>
>>> Florian, any thoughts if support for this chip can/should be deprecated
>>> or even removed ?
>>
>> I am still using my rdc321x-based SoC, so no, this is not obsolete as
>> far as I am concerned, time permitting, modernizing the driver is on my
>> TODO after checking/fixing the Ethernet driver first.
>>
>
> Do you have a manual ? I'd give it a try if you can test it - conversion
> should be simple enough (I have a coccinelle script which partially
> automates it), but this chip seems to have a fast timeout, and the
> comments in the code ("set the timeout to 81.92 us") seem to be quite
> obviously wrong.
Yes, there is a public manual for that SoC, search for RDC R8610 and the
first link you find should be a 276 page long manual for the SoC.
I probably won't be able to test anything until the middle of next week
though.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists