| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8e35f372-0ce6-fd91-3ce0-3aae2f1f27c2@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 19:59:03 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: tmaimon77@...il.com
Cc: arnd@...db.de, avifishman70@...il.com, benjaminfair@...gle.com,
biju.das.jz@...renesas.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, j.neuschaefer@....net,
jirislaby@...nel.org, joel@....id.au,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net, lkundrak@...sk,
marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@...hiba.co.jp, olof@...om.net,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, robert.hancock@...ian.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, shawnguo@...nel.org,
tali.perry1@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, venture@...gle.com,
vkoul@...nel.org, will@...nel.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
yuenn@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/18] clk: npcm8xx: add clock controller
Le 20/06/2022 à 14:48, Tomer Maimon a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 at 20:14, Christophe JAILLET
> <christophe.jaillet-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@...lic.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> Le 19/06/2022 à 17:12, Tomer Maimon a écrit :
>>> Nuvoton Arbel BMC NPCM8XX contains an integrated clock controller which
>>> generates and supplies clocks to all modules within the BMC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMQAvxtiuMwx3w@...lic.gmane.organe.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/clk/Kconfig | 6 +
>>> drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/clk/clk-npcm8xx.c | 760 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 767 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-npcm8xx.c
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Hi, below a few comments related to error handling and possible
>> dev_err_probe() usage to savec a few LoC.
>>
>> CJ
>>
>>> +static struct clk_hw *
>>> +npcm8xx_clk_register_pll(struct device *dev, void __iomem *pllcon,
>>> + const char *name, const char *parent_name,
>>> + unsigned long flags)
>>> +{
>>> + struct npcm8xx_clk_pll *pll;
>>> + struct clk_init_data init;
>>> + struct clk_hw *hw;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + pll = kzalloc(sizeof(*pll), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!pll)
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> +
>>> + pr_debug("%s reg, name=%s, p=%s\n", __func__, name, parent_name);
>>> +
>>> + init.name = name;
>>> + init.ops = &npcm8xx_clk_pll_ops;
>>> + init.parent_names = &parent_name;
>>> + init.num_parents = 1;
>>> + init.flags = flags;
>>> +
>>> + pll->pllcon = pllcon;
>>> + pll->hw.init = &init;
>>> +
>>> + hw = &pll->hw;
>>> +
>>> + ret = devm_clk_hw_register(dev, hw);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + kfree(pll);
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> there is no other kfree(() in this patch. It is handled by the framework
>> once the clk is registered or should there be another kfree() somewhere
>> or should pll be devm_alloc()'ed?
> Could use the devm_kzalloc but the hw is sent to the devm function and
> not the pll struct.
My point, as explained below is that some resources are managed (i.e.
allocated by a devm_ function and released by the framework if the probe
fails or if the driver is removed), but not all.
I think that it is not consistent and that maybe the release of the
corresponding resources should be handled in a way or another.
>>
>>
>>> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return hw;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +static int npcm8xx_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct clk_hw_onecell_data *npcm8xx_clk_data;
>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + void __iomem *clk_base;
>>> + struct clk_hw *hw;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(npcm8xx_clk_data, hws,
>>> + NPCM8XX_NUM_CLOCKS),
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!npcm8xx_clk_data)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + clk_base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(clk_base))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(clk_base);
>>> +
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data->num = NPCM8XX_NUM_CLOCKS;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < NPCM8XX_NUM_CLOCKS; i++)
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data->hws[i] = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
>>> +
>>> + /* Reference 25MHz clock */
>>> + hw = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(dev, "refclk", NULL, 0, NPCM8XX_REF_CLK);
>>
>> Other resoruces are managed, but not this one.
>> Is it on purpose?
> This is the fixed clock - the SoC Reference clock, what do you mean by
> not managed?
clk_hw_register_fixed_rate() allocates some memory. If an error occures
later on or if the driver is .remove()'ed, this memory will leak.
(unless I missed something).
Most of your other function calls use some devm_ variant, so the
corresponding resources are released automatically in case of error or
if the driver is unloaed.
>> Is an error handling path needed or a devm_add_action_or_reset()?
>>
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data->hws[NPCM8XX_CLK_REFCLK] = hw;
>>> +
>>> + /* Register plls */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(npcm8xx_plls); i++) {
>>> + const struct npcm8xx_clk_pll_data *pll_data = &npcm8xx_plls[i];
>>> +
>>> + hw = npcm8xx_clk_register_pll(dev, clk_base + pll_data->reg,
>>> + pll_data->name,
>>> + pll_data->parent_name,
>>> + pll_data->flags);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register pll\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (pll_data->onecell_idx >= 0)
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data->hws[pll_data->onecell_idx] = hw;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Register fixed dividers */
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NPCM8XX_CLK_S_PLL1_DIV2,
>>> + NPCM8XX_CLK_S_PLL1, 0, 1, 2);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register fixed div\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>
>> return dev_err_probe()?
> it will save online but still enter to a bigger function, I am not
> sure that the error will be EPROBE_DEFER, and we have returned the
> error in the code.
It is mostly a matter of taste, so if you don't think my proposal
improves anything, just forget about it.
>>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NPCM8XX_CLK_S_PLL2_DIV2,
>>> + NPCM8XX_CLK_S_PLL2, 0, 1, 2);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register pll div2\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>
>> Same here and in other calls below.
>>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NPCM8XX_CLK_S_PRE_CLK,
>>> + NPCM8XX_CLK_S_CPU_MUX, 0, 1, 2);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register ckclk div2\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NPCM8XX_CLK_S_AXI,
>>> + NPCM8XX_CLK_S_TH, 0, 1, 2);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register axi div2\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NPCM8XX_CLK_S_ATB,
>>> + NPCM8XX_CLK_S_AXI, 0, 1, 2);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register atb div2\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Register muxes */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(npcm8xx_muxes); i++) {
>>> + const struct npcm8xx_clk_mux_data *mux_data = &npcm8xx_muxes[i];
>>> +
>>> + hw = clk_hw_register_mux_table(dev, mux_data->name,
>>> + mux_data->parent_names,
>>> + mux_data->num_parents,
>>> + mux_data->flags,
>>> + clk_base + NPCM8XX_CLKSEL,
>>> + mux_data->shift,
>>> + mux_data->mask, 0,
>>> + mux_data->table,
>>> + &npcm8xx_clk_lock);
>>> +
>> Same here. Error handling?
> what do you mean?
I mean the same as above. clk_hw_register_mux_table() allocates some
memory. If an error occures later on or if the driver is .remove()'ed,
this memory will leak. (unless I missed something).
Error handling was not a really good wording. You should read "should
the resources allocated by this function be released if an error occures
below"
>>
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register mux\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (mux_data->onecell_idx >= 0)
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data->hws[mux_data->onecell_idx] = hw;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Register clock dividers specified in npcm8xx_divs */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(npcm8xx_divs); i++) {
>>> + const struct npcm8xx_clk_div_data *div_data = &npcm8xx_divs[i];
>>> +
>>> + hw = clk_hw_register_divider(dev, div_data->name,
>>> + div_data->parent_name,
>>> + div_data->flags,
>>> + clk_base + div_data->reg,
>>> + div_data->shift, div_data->width,
>>> + div_data->clk_divider_flags,
>>> + &npcm8xx_clk_lock);
>>
>> devm_clk_hw_register_divider()?
> Will do.
Here, the devm_ alternative exist. But my point is the same as above.
(release of resources in cae of error or if the driver is removed)
>>
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "npcm8xx_clk: Can't register div table\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (div_data->onecell_idx >= 0)
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data->hws[div_data->onecell_idx] = hw;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(dev, of_clk_hw_onecell_get,
>>> + npcm8xx_clk_data);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id npcm8xx_clk_dt_ids[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "nuvoton,npcm845-clk", },
>>> + { }
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, npcm8xx_clk_dt_ids);
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_driver npcm8xx_clk_driver = {
>>> + .probe = npcm8xx_clk_probe,
>>> + .driver = {
>>> + .name = "npcm8xx_clk",
>>> + .of_match_table = npcm8xx_clk_dt_ids,
>>> + },
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int __init npcm8xx_clk_driver_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return platform_driver_register(&npcm8xx_clk_driver);
>>> +}
>>> +arch_initcall(npcm8xx_clk_driver_init);
>>> +
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tomer
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists