On 04/19/2016 06:01 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
> Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
>>> Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
>>> as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
>>> struct instead of a single reference in the priv struct which was
>>> overwritten by the 2nd PHY.
>>
>> David, Is it possible to drop prev version of this patch from linux-next
>> - it breaks boot on many TI boards with -next.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> [ 17.870933] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
>>> address 00000180
>>> [ 17.879557] pgd = dc8bc000
>>> [ 17.882514] [00000180] *pgd=9c882831, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
>>> [ 17.889213] Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] ARM
>>> [ 17.893838] Modules linked in:
>>> [ 17.897102] CPU: 0 PID: 1657 Comm: connmand Not tainted
>>> 4.5.0-ge463dfb-dirty #11
>>> [ 17.904947] Hardware name: Cambrionix whippet
>>> [ 17.909576] task: dc859240 ti: dc968000 task.ti: dc968000
>>> [ 17.915339] PC is at phy_attached_print+0x18/0x8c
>>> [ 17.920339] LR is at phy_attached_info+0x14/0x18
>>> [ 17.925247] pc : [<c042baec>] lr : [<c042bb74>] psr: 600f0113
>>> [ 17.925247] sp : dc969cf8 ip : dc969d28 fp : dc969d18
>>> [ 17.937425] r10: dda7a400 r9 : 00000000 r8 : 00000000
>>> [ 17.942971] r7 : 00000001 r6 : ddb00480 r5 : ddb8cb34 r4 : 00000000
>>> [ 17.949898] r3 : c0954cc0 r2 : c09562b0 r1 : 00000000 r0 : 00000000
>>> [ 17.956829] Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment
>>> none
>>> [ 17.964401] Control: 10c5387d Table: 9c8bc019 DAC: 00000051
>>> [ 17.970500] Process connmand (pid: 1657, stack limit = 0xdc968210)
>>> [ 17.977059] Stack: (0xdc969cf8 to 0xdc96a000)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> [ 18.323956] [<c05e4cb8>] (inet_ioctl) from [<c055f5ac>]
>>> (sock_ioctl+0x15c/0x2d8)
>>> [ 18.331829] [<c055f450>] (sock_ioctl) from [<c010b388>]
>>> (do_vfs_ioctl+0x98/0x8d0)
>>> [ 18.339765] r7:00008914 r6:dc8ab4c0 r5:dd257ae0 r4:beaeda20
>>> [ 18.345822] [<c010b2f0>] (do_vfs_ioctl) from [<c010bc34>]
>>> (SyS_ioctl+0x74/0x84)
>>> [ 18.353573] r10:00000000 r9:00000011 r8:beaeda20 r7:00008914
>>> r6:dc8ab4c0 r5:dc8ab4c0
>>> [ 18.361924] r4:00000000
>>> [ 18.364653] [<c010bbc0>] (SyS_ioctl) from [<c00163e0>]
>>> (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
>>> [ 18.372682] r9:dc968000 r8:c00165e8 r7:00000036 r6:00000002 r5:00000011
>>> r4:00000000
>>> [ 18.380960] Code: e92dd810 e24cb010 e24dd010 e59b4004 (e5902180)
>>> [ 18.387580] ---[ end trace c80529466223f3f3 ]---
>>
>> ^ Could you make it shorter and drop timestamps, pls?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Goodbody <andrew.goodb...@cambrionix.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v2 - Move allocation of memory for priv->slaves to inside cpsw_probe_dt so
>>> it
>>> has data->slaves initialised first which is needed to calculate size
>>>
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>>> index 42fdfd4..e62909c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>>> @@ -349,6 +349,7 @@ struct cpsw_slave {
>>> struct cpsw_slave_data *data;
>>> struct phy_device *phy;
>>> struct net_device *ndev;
>>> + struct device_node *phy_node;
>>> u32 port_vlan;
>>> u32 open_stat;
>>> };
>>> @@ -367,7 +368,6 @@ struct cpsw_priv {
>>> spinlock_t lock;
>>> struct platform_device *pdev;
>>> struct net_device *ndev;
>>> - struct device_node *phy_node;
>>> struct napi_struct napi_rx;
>>> struct napi_struct napi_tx;
>>> struct device *dev;
>>> @@ -1148,8 +1148,8 @@ static void cpsw_slave_open(struct cpsw_slave *slave,
>>> struct cpsw_priv *priv)
>>> cpsw_ale_add_mcast(priv->ale, priv->ndev->broadcast,
>>> 1 << slave_port, 0, 0, ALE_MCAST_FWD_2);
>>>
>>> - if (priv->phy_node)
>>> - slave->phy = of_phy_connect(priv->ndev, priv->phy_node,
>>> + if (slave->phy_node)
>>> + slave->phy = of_phy_connect(priv->ndev, slave->phy_node,
>>> &cpsw_adjust_link, 0, slave->data->phy_if);
>>> else
>>> slave->phy = phy_connect(priv->ndev, slave->data->phy_id,
>>> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>> struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>>> struct device_node *slave_node;
>>> struct cpsw_platform_data *data = &priv->data;
>>> - int i = 0, ret;
>>> + int i, ret;
>>> u32 prop;
>>>
>>> if (!node)
>>> @@ -1958,6 +1958,14 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>> }
>>> data->slaves = prop;
>>>
>>> + priv->slaves = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>> + sizeof(struct cpsw_slave) * data->slaves,
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!priv->slaves)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + for (i = 0; i < data->slaves; i++)
>>> + priv->slaves[i].slave_num = i;
>>> +
>>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "active_slave", &prop)) {
>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Missing active_slave property in the
>>> DT.\n");
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> @@ -2023,6 +2031,7 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>> if (ret)
>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Doesn't have any child node\n");
>>>
>>> + i = 0;
>>> for_each_child_of_node(node, slave_node) {
>>> struct cpsw_slave_data *slave_data = data->slave_data + i;
>>> const void *mac_addr = NULL;
>>> @@ -2033,7 +2042,8 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>>> if (strcmp(slave_node->name, "slave"))
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> - priv->phy_node = of_parse_phandle(slave_node, "phy-handle", 0);
>>> + priv->slaves[i].phy_node =
>>> + of_parse_phandle(slave_node, "phy-handle", 0);
>>
>> i++?
>>
>> Ideally, the simplest way is to save phy_node in slave_data, but ...
>> (see comment below).
>
> FYI, I have a patch [1] that does exactly that in my queue. Sorry
> I've been busy and haven't had a chance to rebase/retest/resubmit
> since Nicolas gave his Tested-By (and I missed Andrew's original
> patch). I can probably steal some time to resurrect that quickly
> if it's preferred, just let me know.
>
> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg357772.html
Ah Ok. There are no user of cpsw_platform_data outside of net/ethernet/ti/,
so yes, looks like your patch 1 does exactly what's needed.
>
>>
>>
>>> parp = of_get_property(slave_node, "phy_id", &lenp);
>>> if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(slave_node)) {
>>> struct device_node *phy_node;
>>> @@ -2292,16 +2302,6 @@ static int cpsw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> memcpy(ndev->dev_addr, priv->mac_addr, ETH_ALEN);
>>>
>>> - priv->slaves = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>> - sizeof(struct cpsw_slave) * data->slaves,
>>> - GFP_KERNEL);
>>> - if (!priv->slaves) {
>>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
>>> - goto clean_runtime_disable_ret;
>>> - }
>> I don't think you can move this out from here - it will break legacy boot :(
>>
>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < data->slaves; i++)
>>> - priv->slaves[i].slave_num = i;
>>
>> Personally, I see only one safe way to do it without big rework -
>> do second pass of DT parsing here to fill phy_node field.
>>
--
regards,
-grygorii
