[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220324154757.GB3514576@p14s>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:47:57 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shengjiu.wang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: core: check rproc->power value before
decreasing it
Hi Shengjiu,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:51:36PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> There are possibility that two 'stop' operation happen
> in parallel, then the rproc->power may be decreased to
> -1, that this reference count will be in wrong state.
> So check rproc->power to make sure it is larger than
> zero before decreasing it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index c510125769b9..84e065ad8743 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2075,6 +2075,9 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
> return ret;
> }
>
> + if (atomic_read(&rproc->power) <= 0)
> + goto out;
> +
Although the proposed solution will likely work, I think it is best to use
rproc->state for this. Simply do the same test as in state_store()[1] and exit
if the conditions are not satisfied. Please do the same thing for
rproc_detach().
Thanks,
Mathieu
[1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c#L205
> /* if the remote proc is still needed, bail out */
> if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&rproc->power))
> goto out;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists