[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mdz7fVOOcN80YV1hGMqqhDVNM+1Da3BysaZG=9+P1oMAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:03:23 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: pin GPIO devices in place during descriptor lookup
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 7:43 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> There's time between when we locate the relevant descriptor during
> lookup and when we actually take the reference to its parent GPIO
> device where - if the GPIO device in question is removed - we'll end up
> with a dangling pointer to freed memory. Make sure devices cannot be
> removed until we hold a new reference to the device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 1baeb6778ec6..8a15b8f6b50e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -4147,27 +4147,33 @@ static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_and_request(struct device *consumer,
> struct gpio_desc *desc;
> int ret;
>
> - desc = gpiod_find_by_fwnode(fwnode, consumer, con_id, idx, &flags, &lookupflags);
> - if (gpiod_not_found(desc) && platform_lookup_allowed) {
> + scoped_guard(rwsem_read, &gpio_devices_sem) {
I am too sleep deprived to be coding. This doesn't make sense because
if we are held at the write semaphore in gpiodev_release() then it's
already too late as the device is being removed already and we'll
still end up with a dangling pointer.
Should we hold off any reference putting for all GPIO devices when a
descriptor lookup is in progress?
Bart
> + desc = gpiod_find_by_fwnode(fwnode, consumer, con_id, idx,
> + &flags, &lookupflags);
> + if (gpiod_not_found(desc) && platform_lookup_allowed) {
> + /*
> + * Either we are not using DT or ACPI, or their lookup
> + * did not return a result. In that case, use platform
> + * lookup as a fallback.
> + */
> + dev_dbg(consumer,
> + "using lookup tables for GPIO lookup\n");
> + desc = gpiod_find(consumer, con_id, idx, &lookupflags);
> + }
> +
> + if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> + dev_dbg(consumer, "No GPIO consumer %s found\n",
> + con_id);
> + return desc;
> + }
> +
> /*
> - * Either we are not using DT or ACPI, or their lookup did not
> - * return a result. In that case, use platform lookup as a
> - * fallback.
> + * If a connection label was passed use that, else attempt to
> + * use the device name as label
> */
> - dev_dbg(consumer, "using lookup tables for GPIO lookup\n");
> - desc = gpiod_find(consumer, con_id, idx, &lookupflags);
> + ret = gpiod_request(desc, label);
> }
>
> - if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> - dev_dbg(consumer, "No GPIO consumer %s found\n", con_id);
> - return desc;
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * If a connection label was passed use that, else attempt to use
> - * the device name as label
> - */
> - ret = gpiod_request(desc, label);
> if (ret) {
> if (!(ret == -EBUSY && flags & GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_NONEXCLUSIVE))
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> --
> 2.40.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists