[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240222010530.GA11949@rigel>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:05:30 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: cdev: release IRQs when the gpio chip
device is removed
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 08:57:44AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:29:59PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:10:18PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int linereq_unregistered_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > > + unsigned long action, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct linereq *lr = container_of(nb, struct linereq,
> > > + device_unregistered_nb);
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < lr->num_lines; i++) {
> > > + if (lr->lines[i].desc)
> > > + edge_detector_stop(&lr->lines[i]);
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > Firstly, the re-ordering in the previous patch creates a race,
> > as the NULLing of the gdev->chip serves to numb the cdev ioctls, so
> > there is now a window between the notifier being called and that numbing,
> > during which userspace may call linereq_set_config() and re-request
> > the irq.
> >
> > There is also a race here with linereq_set_config(). That can be prevented
> > by holding the lr->config_mutex - assuming the notifier is not being called
> > from atomic context.
> >
>
> It occurs to me that the fixed reordering in patch 1 would place
> the notifier call AFTER the NULLing of the ioctls, so there will no longer
> be any chance of a race with linereq_set_config() - so holding the
> config_mutex semaphore is not necessary.
>
NULLing -> numbing
The gdev->chip is NULLed, so the ioctls are numbed.
And I need to let the coffee soak in before sending.
> In which case this patch is fine - it is only patch 1 that requires
> updating.
>
> Cheers,
> Kent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists