Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_tis: Free IRQ if probing fails | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:32 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 4/14/20 9:13 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 08:11:15PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 4/13/20 8:07 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:04:25PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> Hi Jarkko, >>>> >>>> On 4/12/20 7:04 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>>> Call devm_free_irq() if we have to revert to polling in order not to >>>>> unnecessarily reserve the IRQ for the life-cycle of the driver. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.5.x >>>>> Reported-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >>>>> Fixes: e3837e74a06d ("tpm_tis: Refactor the interrupt setup") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 5 ++++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c >>>>> index 27c6ca031e23..ae6868e7b696 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c >>>>> @@ -1062,9 +1062,12 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq, >>>>> if (irq) { >>>>> tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, IRQF_SHARED, >>>>> irq); >>>>> - if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ)) >>>>> + if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ)) { >>>>> dev_err(&chip->dev, FW_BUG >>>>> "TPM interrupt not working, polling instead\n"); >>>>> + devm_free_irq(chip->dev.parent, priv->irq, >>>>> + chip); >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> My initial plan was actually to do something similar, but if the probe code >>>> is actually ever fixed to work as intended again then this will lead to a >>>> double free as then the IRQ-test path of tpm_tis_send() will have called >>>> disable_interrupts() which already calls devm_free_irq(). >>>> >>>> You could check for chip->irq != 0 here to avoid that.
Erm in case you haven't figured it out yet this should be priv->irq != 0, sorry.
>>>> >>>> But it all is rather messy, which is why I went with the "#if 0" approach >>>> in my patch. >>> >>> I think it is right way to fix it. It is a bug independent of the issue >>> we are experiencing. >>> >>> However, what you are suggesting should be done in addition. Do you have >>> a patch in place or do you want me to refine mine? >> >> I do not have a patch ready for this, if you can refine yours that would >> be great. > > Thanks! Just wanted to confirm.
And thank you for working on a (temporary?) fix for this.
Regards,
Hans
| |