Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] driver core: Fix driver_sysfs_remove() order in really_probe() | From | Lu Baolu <> | Date | Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:08:43 +0800 |
| |
Hi Greg,
On 12/29/21 6:04 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 12:51:59PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: >> 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. > > 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.
> > 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.
> >> >> Fixes: 1901fb2604fbc ("Driver core: fix "driver" symlink timing") >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
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.
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/base/dd.c | 7 ++++--- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c >> index 68ea1f949daa..9eaaff2f556c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/dd.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c >> @@ -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.
> > thanks, > > greg k-h >
Best regards, baolu
| |