[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OS0PR01MB592211963202423E46CC2B4D86FFA@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:14:53 +0000
From: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Biju Das <biju.das.au@...il.com>,
"linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] alarmtimer: Fix rebind failure
Hi Geert Uytterhoeven,
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] alarmtimer: Fix rebind failure
>
> Hi Geert Uytterhoeven,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] alarmtimer: Fix rebind failure
> >
> > Hi Biju,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 1:59 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The resources allocated in alarmtimer_rtc_add_device() are not freed
> > > leading to re-bind failure for the endpoint driver. Fix this issue
> > > by adding alarmtimer_rtc_remove_device().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > Does this need a Fixes tag?
>
> I think so, as it breaks unbind/bind on lot of RTC drivers.
>
> There are 2 commits, I will add both as fixes tag.
>
> c79108bd19a8 ("alarmtimer: Make alarmtimer platform device child of RTC
> device")
>
> 7c94caca877b ("alarmtimer: Use wakeup source from alarmtimer platform
> device"
>
> >
> > > --- a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
> > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(freezer_delta_lock);
> > > /* rtc timer and device for setting alarm wakeups at suspend */
> > > static struct rtc_timer rtctimer;
> > > static struct rtc_device *rtcdev;
> > > +static struct platform_device *rtc_pdev;
> > > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rtcdev_lock);
> > >
> > > /**
> > > @@ -109,6 +110,7 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct
> > > device
> > *dev)
> > > }
> > >
> > > rtcdev = rtc;
> > > + rtc_pdev = pdev;
> > > /* hold a reference so it doesn't go away */
> > > get_device(dev);
> > > pdev = NULL;
> > > @@ -123,6 +125,23 @@ static int alarmtimer_rtc_add_device(struct
> > > device
> > *dev)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void alarmtimer_rtc_remove_device(struct device *dev) {
> > > + struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
> > > +
> > > + if (rtc_pdev) {
> >
> > As the return value of class_interface.add_dev() is never checked
> > (alarmtimer_rtc_add_device() returns -EBUSY on adding a second
> > alarmtimer), multiple timers may have been added, but only one of them
> > will be the real alarmtimer.
> > Hence this function should check if rtcdev == rtc before unregistering
> > the real alarmtimer. Of course all of this should be protected by
> rtcdev_lock.
>
> Ok will add lock here and the check.
I won't be able to add lock here as it is giving
1) BUG invalid context
2) Scheduling while atomic() as lock is held by delete function.
Cheers,
Biju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists