[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdX4gqPLv5ZWiWe-B+bQtHSfF9AxZTKWisFZEKa29Ge2KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 17:36:26 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] of: dynamic: Refactor action prints to not use
"%pOF" inside devtree_lock
Hi Rob,
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 12:42 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> While originally it was fine to format strings using "%pOF" while
> holding devtree_lock, this now causes a deadlock. Lockdep reports:
>
> of_get_parent from of_fwnode_get_parent+0x18/0x24
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of_fwnode_get_parent from fwnode_count_parents+0xc/0x28
> fwnode_count_parents from fwnode_full_name_string+0x18/0xac
> fwnode_full_name_string from device_node_string+0x1a0/0x404
> device_node_string from pointer+0x3c0/0x534
> pointer from vsnprintf+0x248/0x36c
> vsnprintf from vprintk_store+0x130/0x3b4
>
> Fix this by moving the printing in __of_changeset_entry_apply() outside
> the lock. As the only difference in the the multiple prints is the
> action name, use the existing "action_names" to refactor the prints into
> a single print.
>
> Fixes: a92eb7621b9fb2c2 ("lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators")
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> ---
> v5 (v2 in this series):
> - Move majority of refactoring to separate patch and minimize the fix
> to just moving the print out of the locked section.
Thanks for your patch!
> --- a/drivers/of/dynamic.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
> @@ -648,20 +634,17 @@ static int __of_changeset_entry_apply(struct of_changeset_entry *ce)
> }
>
> ret = __of_update_property(ce->np, ce->prop, &old_prop);
> - if (ret) {
> - pr_err("changeset: update_property failed @%pOF/%s\n",
> - ce->np,
> - ce->prop->name);
> - break;
> - }
> break;
> default:
> ret = -EINVAL;
> }
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
>
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("changeset: apply failed: cset<%p> %-15s %pOF:%s\n",
Printing the cset pointer will (needlessly?) complicate the EXPECT_*()
handling in the unit test.
> + ce, action_names[ce->action], ce->np, ce->prop->name);
This should check ce->action to avoid an out-of-bounds access beyond
the end of action_names[].
> return ret;
> + }
>
> switch (ce->action) {
> case OF_RECONFIG_ATTACH_NODE:
The rest LGTM to me.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists