[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241002135850.GE7504@google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 14:58:50 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: jikos@...nel.org, jic23@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, bentiss@...nel.org,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, pavel@....cz, ukleinek@...ian.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] HID: hid-sensor-hub: don't use stale
platform-data on remove
Intentional top-post!
Just this patch to be reviewed now.
Any of the HID people around?
> The hid-sensor-hub creates the individual device structs and transfers them
> to the created mfd platform-devices via the platform_data in the mfd_cell.
>
> Before commit e651a1da442a ("HID: hid-sensor-hub: Allow parallel synchronous reads")
> the sensor-hub was managing access centrally, with one "completion" in the
> hub's data structure, which needed to be finished on removal at the latest.
>
> The mentioned commit then moved this central management to each hid sensor
> device, resulting on a completion in each struct hid_sensor_hub_device.
> The remove procedure was adapted to go through all sensor devices and
> finish any pending "completion".
>
> What this didn't take into account was, platform_device_add_data() that is
> used by mfd_add{_hotplug}_devices() does a kmemdup on the submitted
> platform-data. So the data the platform-device gets is a copy of the
> original data, meaning that the device worked on a different completion
> than what sensor_hub_remove() currently wants to access.
>
> To fix that, use device_for_each_child() to go through each child-device
> similar to how mfd_remove_devices() unregisters the devices later and
> with that get the live platform_data to finalize the correct completion.
>
> Fixes: e651a1da442a ("HID: hid-sensor-hub: Allow parallel synchronous reads")
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> ---
> drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c b/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c
> index 26e93a331a51..3cd00afa453a 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c
> @@ -730,23 +730,30 @@ static int sensor_hub_probe(struct hid_device *hdev,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int sensor_hub_finalize_pending_fn(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +{
> + struct hid_sensor_hub_device *hsdev = dev->platform_data;
> +
> + if (hsdev->pending.status)
> + complete(&hsdev->pending.ready);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static void sensor_hub_remove(struct hid_device *hdev)
> {
> struct sensor_hub_data *data = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> unsigned long flags;
> - int i;
>
> hid_dbg(hdev, " hardware removed\n");
> hid_hw_close(hdev);
> hid_hw_stop(hdev);
> +
> spin_lock_irqsave(&data->lock, flags);
> - for (i = 0; i < data->hid_sensor_client_cnt; ++i) {
> - struct hid_sensor_hub_device *hsdev =
> - data->hid_sensor_hub_client_devs[i].platform_data;
> - if (hsdev->pending.status)
> - complete(&hsdev->pending.ready);
> - }
> + device_for_each_child(&hdev->dev, NULL,
> + sensor_hub_finalize_pending_fn);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&data->lock, flags);
> +
> mfd_remove_devices(&hdev->dev);
> mutex_destroy(&data->mutex);
> }
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists