[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f28cba7f-6799-9f08-71b2-249a2a506913@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:12:02 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
"maintainer:BROADCOM BCM281XX/BCM11XXX/BCM216XX ARM ARCHITE..."
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
Jason Wang <wangborong@...rlc.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
"open list:PIN CONTROL SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: bcm2835: Fix a few error paths
On 1/28/2022 6:35 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:50:31PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> After commit 266423e60ea1 ("pinctrl: bcm2835: Change init order for gpio
>> hogs") a few error paths would not unwind properly the registration of
>> gpio ranges. Correct that by assigning a single error label and goto it
>> whenever we encounter a fatal error.
>
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> While this seems legit per se, my eyes caught this:
>
>
>> if (!girq->parents) {
>> - pinctrl_remove_gpio_range(pc->pctl_dev, &pc->gpio_range);
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out_remove;
>
> Non-devm....
>
>> }
>>
>> if (is_7211) {
>> pc->wake_irq = devm_kcalloc(dev, BCM2835_NUM_IRQS,
>> sizeof(*pc->wake_irq),
>> GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ...followed by devm.
>
> It means more ordering bugs in the ->remove() and error path are lurking
> around. Can you double check and be sure that we do not have a case where
> non-devm registration code followed by devm?
It seems to me like we are fine with the patch as is, because:
- girq->parents is allocated with devm
- pc->wake_irq is allocated with devm
- name is allocated with devm
and those are the only variables being allocated for which we also
process an error handling path.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists