driver core: Fix driver_sysfs_remove() order in really_probe()
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 driver core: Fix driver_sysfs_remove() order in really_probe()
The driver_sysfs_remove() should always be called after successful driver_sysfs_add(). Otherwise, NULL pointers will be passed to the sysfs_remove_link(), where it is decoded as searching sysfs root.
--- drivers/base/dd.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
drivers/base/dd.c +4 -3
@@ -577,14 +577,14 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)if (dev->bus->dma_configure) { ret = dev->bus->dma_configure (dev);if (ret) - goto probe_failed; + goto pinctrl_bind_failed; } ret =driver_sysfs_add (dev);if (ret) {pr_err ("%s: driver_sysfs_add(%s) failed\n" , __func__,dev_name (dev)); - goto probe_failed; + goto sysfs_failed; }if (dev->pm_domain && dev->pm_domain->activate) {
@@ -657,6 +657,8 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)else if (drv->remove) drv->remove (dev); probe_failed: +driver_sysfs_remove (dev); +sysfs_failed:if (dev->bus)blocking_notifier_call_chain (&dev->bus->p->bus_notifier,BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND , dev);
@@ -666,7 +668,6 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)arch_teardown_dma_ops (dev);kfree (dev->dma_range_map); dev->dma_range_map =NULL ; -driver_sysfs_remove (dev); dev->driver =NULL ;dev_set_drvdata (dev,NULL );if (dev->pm_domain && dev->pm_domain->dismiss)
Signature · 1 line
2.25.1
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerQuoted 3 lines · Lu Baolu
The
driver_sysfs_remove()should always be called after successfuldriver_sysfs_add(). Otherwise, NULL pointers will be passed to thesysfs_remove_link(), where it is decoded as searching sysfs root.
What null pointer is being sent to sysfs_remove_link()? For which link?
How are you triggering this failure path and how was it tested?
Quoted 13 lines
Fixes 1901fb2604fbc ("Driver core: fix "driver" symlink timing")Signed-off-by Lu Baolu <[email protected]>--- drivers/base/dd.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)drivers/base/dd.c +0
-0
drivers/base/dd.c static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv) · line 580
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/base/dd.c +1
-1@@ -577,14 +577,14 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)if (dev->bus->dma_configure) { ret = dev->bus->dma_configure (dev);if (ret) - goto probe_failed; + goto pinctrl_bind_failed;
Why not call the notifier chain here? Did you verify that this change still works properly?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Quoted 6 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 3 lines · Lu Baolu
The
driver_sysfs_remove()should always be called after successfuldriver_sysfs_add(). Otherwise, NULL pointers will be passed to thesysfs_remove_link(), where it is decoded as searching sysfs root.What null pointer is being sent to
sysfs_remove_link()? For which link?
Oh, my fault. Thank you for pointing this out.
The device and driver sysfs nodes have already been created, so there's no null pointers. The out-of-order call of driver_sysfs_remove() just tries to remove some nonexistent nodes under the device and driver sysfs nodes. It is allowed by the sysfs layer.
Quoted 2 lines
How are you triggering this failure path and how was it tested?
I hacked the a driver to return failure in dma_configure() callback. I didn't see any failure. But I mistakenly thought that driver_sysfs_remove() could possibly delete some sysfs entries by mistake. That's not true. Sorry for the noise.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes 1901fb2604fbc ("Driver core: fix "driver" symlink timing")
This patch only improves the readability of really_probe() and it does not fix any bugs. I will remove above tags and resent a version if you think this improvement is valuable.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Lu Baolu <[email protected]>--- drivers/base/dd.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Quoted 13 lines
drivers/base/dd.c static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv) · line 580
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/base/dd.c +1
-1@@ -577,14 +577,14 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)if (dev->bus->dma_configure) { ret = dev->bus->dma_configure (dev);if (ret) - goto probe_failed; + goto pinctrl_bind_failed;Why not call the notifier chain here? Did you verify that this change still works properly?
The BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND event is listened in two places in the tree.
$ git grep BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND -- :^drivers/base/dd.c :^include drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c: case BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND: drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c: case BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND:
The usage pattern is setting up something in BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER and doing the cleanup in BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND or BUS_NOTIFY_UNBIND_DRIVER. The right order of these events should be
[failure case]
- BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER: driver is about to be bound
- BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND: driver failed to be bound
or
[successful case]
- BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER: driver is about to be bound
- BUS_NOTIFY_BOUND_DRIVER: driver bound to device
- BUS_NOTIFY_UNBIND_DRIVER: driver is about to be unbound
- BUS_NOTIFY_UNBOUND_DRIVER: driver is unbound from the device
Without above change, when dma_configure() returns failure, the listener could get a BUS_NOTIFY_DRIVER_NOT_BOUND without BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER.
Please guide me if my understanding is wrong.
Quoted 5 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
Best regards,
baolu