linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] driver: core: add dedicated workqueue for devlink removal

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hNtTg+tJZSP_tZUrxQcYa9fp7LZXNG3bGVEbxX1W1Eqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:37:46 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: nuno.sa@...log.com
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, 
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, 
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] driver: core: add dedicated workqueue for devlink removal

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:09 PM Nuno Sa via B4 Relay
<devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>
>
> Let's use a dedicated queue for devlinks since releasing a link happens
> asynchronously but some code paths, like DT overlays, have some
> expectations regarding the of_node when being removed (the refcount must
> be 1). Given how devlinks are released that cannot be assured. Hence, add a
> dedicated queue so that it's easy to sync against devlinks removal.
>
> While at it, make sure to explicitly include <linux/workqueue.h>.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>

Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>

> ---
>  drivers/base/core.c    | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/fwnode.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index 14d46af40f9a..4bb9c10489ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>  #include <linux/swiotlb.h>
>  #include <linux/sysfs.h>
>  #include <linux/dma-map-ops.h> /* for dma_default_coherent */
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>
>  #include "base.h"
>  #include "physical_location.h"
> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ static bool fw_devlink_is_permissive(void);
>  static void __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers(struct device *dev);
>  static bool fw_devlink_drv_reg_done;
>  static bool fw_devlink_best_effort;
> +static struct workqueue_struct *devlink_release_queue __ro_after_init;
>
>  /**
>   * __fwnode_link_add - Create a link between two fwnode_handles.
> @@ -235,6 +237,12 @@ static void __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>                 __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(child, new_sup);
>  }
>
> +void fwnode_links_flush_queue(void)
> +{
> +       if (devlink_release_queue)
> +               flush_workqueue(devlink_release_queue);
> +}
> +
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(device_links_lock);
>  DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(device_links_srcu);
>
> @@ -531,9 +539,13 @@ static void devlink_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>          * It may take a while to complete this work because of the SRCU
>          * synchronization in device_link_release_fn() and if the consumer or
>          * supplier devices get deleted when it runs, so put it into the "long"
> -        * workqueue.
> +        * devlink workqueue (in case we could allocate one).
> +        *
>          */
> -       queue_work(system_long_wq, &link->rm_work);
> +       if (devlink_release_queue)
> +               queue_work(devlink_release_queue, &link->rm_work);
> +       else
> +               device_link_release_fn(&link->rm_work);
>  }
>
>  static struct class devlink_class = {
> @@ -636,10 +648,22 @@ static int __init devlink_class_init(void)
>                 return ret;
>
>         ret = class_interface_register(&devlink_class_intf);
> -       if (ret)
> +       if (ret) {
>                 class_unregister(&devlink_class);
> +               return ret;
> +       }
>
> -       return ret;
> +       /*
> +        * Using a dedicated queue for devlinks since releasing a link happens
> +        * asynchronously but some code paths, like DT overlays, have some
> +        * expectations regarding the of_node when being removed (the refcount
> +        * must be 1). Given how devlinks are released that cannot be assured.
> +        * Hence, add a dedicated queue so that it's easy to sync against
> +        * devlinks removal.
> +        */
> +       devlink_release_queue = alloc_workqueue("devlink_release", 0, 0);
> +
> +       return 0;
>  }
>  postcore_initcall(devlink_class_init);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fwnode.h b/include/linux/fwnode.h
> index 2a72f55d26eb..017b170e9903 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fwnode.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fwnode.h
> @@ -213,5 +213,6 @@ extern bool fw_devlink_is_strict(void);
>  int fwnode_link_add(struct fwnode_handle *con, struct fwnode_handle *sup);
>  void fwnode_links_purge(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
>  void fw_devlink_purge_absent_suppliers(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> +void fwnode_links_flush_queue(void);
>
>  #endif
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>