[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YkXJr2KhSzHJHxRF@google.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:33:03 -0700
From: Benson Leung <bleung@...gle.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Won Chung <wonchung@...gle.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sound/hda: Add NULL check to component match callback
function
Hi Takashi,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:29:10 +0200,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:45:47 +0200,
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:34:38 +0200,
> > > Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:28:20AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:25:43 +0200,
> > > > > Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:12:55AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > - if (!strcmp(dev->driver->name, "i915") &&
> > > > > > > > > > + if (dev->driver && !strcmp(dev->driver->name, "i915") &&
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can NULL dev->driver be really seen? I thought the components are
> > > > > > > > > added by the drivers, hence they ought to have the driver field set.
> > > > > > > > > But there can be corner cases I overlooked.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Takashi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Takashi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I try using component_add in a different driver (usb4 in my
> > > > > > > > case), I think dev->driver here is NULL because the i915 drivers do
> > > > > > > > not have their component master fully bound when this new component is
> > > > > > > > registered. When I test it, it seems to be causing a crash.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hm, from where component_add*() is called? Basically dev->driver must
> > > > > > > be already set before the corresponding driver gets bound at
> > > > > > > __driver_probe_deviec(). So, if the device is added to component from
> > > > > > > the corresponding driver's probe, dev->driver must be non-NULL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The code that declares a device as component does not have to be the
> > > > > > driver of that device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In our case the components are USB ports, and they are devices that
> > > > > > are actually never bind to any drivers: drivers/usb/core/port.c
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, that's what I wanted to know. It'd be helpful if it's more
> > > > > clearly mentioned in the commit log.
> > > >
> > > > Agree.
> > > >
> > > > > BTW, the same problem must be seen in MEI drivers, too.
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't there a patch for those too? I lost track...
> > >
> > > I don't know, I just checked the latest Linus tree.
> > >
> > > And, looking at the HD-audio code, I still wonder how NULL dev->driver
> > > can reach there. Is there any PCI device that is added to component
> > > without binding to a driver? We have dev_is_pci() check at the
> > > beginning, so non-PCI devices should bail out there...
> >
> > Further reading on, I'm really confused. How data=NULL can be passed
> > to this function? The data argument is the value passed from the
> > component_match_add_typed() call in HD-audio driver, hence it must be
> > always the snd_hdac_bus object.
> >
> > And, I guess the i915 string check can be omitted completely, at
> > least, for HD-audio driver. It already have a check of the parent of
> > the device and that should be enough.
>
> That said, something like below (supposing data NULL check being
> superfluous), instead.
>
>
> Takashi
>
> --- a/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
> +++ b/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
> @@ -102,18 +102,13 @@ static int i915_component_master_match(struct device *dev, int subcomponent,
> struct pci_dev *hdac_pci, *i915_pci;
> struct hdac_bus *bus = data;
>
> - if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
> + if (subcomponent != I915_COMPONENT_AUDIO || !dev_is_pci(dev))
> return 0;
>
If I recall this bug correctly, it's not the usb port perse that is falling
through this !dev_is_pci(dev) check, it's actually the usb4-port in a new
proposed patch by Heikki and Mika to extend the usb type-c component to
encompass the usb4 specific pieces too. Is it possible usb4 ports are considered
pci devices, and that's how we got into this situation?
Also, a little more background information: This crash happens because in
our kernel configs, we config'd the usb4 driver as =y (built in) instead of
=m module, which meant that the usb4 port's driver was adding a component
likely much earlier than hdac_i915.
Thanks,
Benson
> hdac_pci = to_pci_dev(bus->dev);
> i915_pci = to_pci_dev(dev);
>
> - if (!strcmp(dev->driver->name, "i915") &&
> - subcomponent == I915_COMPONENT_AUDIO &&
> - connectivity_check(i915_pci, hdac_pci))
> - return 1;
> -
> - return 0;
> + return connectivity_check(i915_pci, hdac_pci);
> }
>
> /* check whether intel graphics is present */
>
--
Benson Leung
Staff Software Engineer
Chrome OS Kernel
Google Inc.
bleung@...gle.com
Chromium OS Project
bleung@...omium.org
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists