Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev-power.wakeirq
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net [150706 15:49]: On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:01:18 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it fails, it will leave dev-power.wakeirq set to a dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() has chance to succeed. Cc: Tony Lindgren tml...@atomide.com Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com --- drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); if (err) - return err; + goto err_cleanup; return 0; + +err_cleanup: + spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags); + dev-power.wakeirq = NULL; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags); + + return err; } Too many labels for me and the fact that acquiring of the lock again in the error patch doesn't look good. However, we can do the entire device_wakeup_attach_irq() under the lock (after removing the locking from it), because we're its only caller. So what about the below instead (build-tested only)? Nice, still works for me and simplifies things: Tested-by: Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev-power.wakeirq
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 12:40:53AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: * Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net [150706 15:49]: On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:01:18 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it fails, it will leave dev-power.wakeirq set to a dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() has chance to succeed. Cc: Tony Lindgren tml...@atomide.com Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com --- drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); if (err) - return err; + goto err_cleanup; return 0; + +err_cleanup: + spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags); + dev-power.wakeirq = NULL; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags); + + return err; } Too many labels for me and the fact that acquiring of the lock again in the error patch doesn't look good. However, we can do the entire device_wakeup_attach_irq() under the lock (after removing the locking from it), because we're its only caller. So what about the below instead (build-tested only)? Nice, still works for me and simplifies things: Tested-by: Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com Cool, thanks for testing Tony. Rafael, I'm fine with your version too. FWIW: Reported-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com -- balbi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev-power.wakeirq
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 12:40:53AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: * Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net [150706 15:49]: On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:01:18 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it fails, it will leave dev-power.wakeirq set to a dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() has chance to succeed. Cc: Tony Lindgren tml...@atomide.com Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com --- drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); if (err) - return err; + goto err_cleanup; return 0; + +err_cleanup: + spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags); + dev-power.wakeirq = NULL; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags); + + return err; } Too many labels for me and the fact that acquiring of the lock again in the error patch doesn't look good. However, we can do the entire device_wakeup_attach_irq() under the lock (after removing the locking from it), because we're its only caller. So what about the below instead (build-tested only)? Nice, still works for me and simplifies things: Tested-by: Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com Cool, thanks for testing Tony. Rafael, I'm fine with your version too. FWIW: Reported-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com OK, applied. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev-power.wakeirq
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote: Hi On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 PM, Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com wrote: on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it fails, it will leave dev-power.wakeirq set to a dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() has chance to succeed. Cc: Tony Lindgren tml...@atomide.com Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com --- drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); if (err) - return err; + goto err_cleanup; return 0; + +err_cleanup: + spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags); + dev-power.wakeirq = NULL; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags); + Why here and not in the fuction that return the error? because the field was set here, why would I clear it elsewhere ? -- balbi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev-power.wakeirq
On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:01:18 PM Felipe Balbi wrote:
on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it
fails, it will leave dev-power.wakeirq set to a
dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make
sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq()
has chance to succeed.
Cc: Tony Lindgren tml...@atomide.com
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com
---
drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
@@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int
irq,
err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq);
if (err)
- return err;
+ goto err_cleanup;
return 0;
+
+err_cleanup:
+ spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags);
+ dev-power.wakeirq = NULL;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags);
+
+ return err;
}
Too many labels for me and the fact that acquiring of the lock again in the
error
patch doesn't look good.
However, we can do the entire device_wakeup_attach_irq() under the lock (after
removing the locking from it), because we're its only caller.
So what about the below instead (build-tested only)?
Rafael
---
drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 12 +---
drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 31 ++-
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
===
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
@@ -45,14 +45,12 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct
return -EEXIST;
}
- dev-power.wakeirq = wirq;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags);
-
err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq);
- if (err)
- return err;
+ if (!err)
+ dev-power.wakeirq = wirq;
- return 0;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags);
+ return err;
}
/**
@@ -105,10 +103,10 @@ void dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(struct device
return;
spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags);
+ device_wakeup_detach_irq(dev);
dev-power.wakeirq = NULL;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags);
- device_wakeup_detach_irq(dev);
if (wirq-dedicated_irq)
free_irq(wirq-irq, wirq);
kfree(wirq);
Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
===
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
@@ -281,32 +281,25 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_wakeup_enable);
* Attach a device wakeirq to the wakeup source so the device
* wake IRQ can be configured automatically for suspend and
* resume.
+ *
+ * Call under the device's power.lock lock.
*/
int device_wakeup_attach_irq(struct device *dev,
struct wake_irq *wakeirq)
{
struct wakeup_source *ws;
- int ret = 0;
- spin_lock_irq(dev-power.lock);
ws = dev-power.wakeup;
if (!ws) {
dev_err(dev, forgot to call call device_init_wakeup?\n);
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto unlock;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
- if (ws-wakeirq) {
- ret = -EEXIST;
- goto unlock;
- }
+ if (ws-wakeirq)
+ return -EEXIST;
ws-wakeirq = wakeirq;
-
-unlock:
- spin_unlock_irq(dev-power.lock);
-
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
/**
@@ -314,20 +307,16 @@ unlock:
* @dev: Device to handle
*
* Removes a device wakeirq from the wakeup source.
+ *
+ * Call under the device's power.lock lock.
*/
void device_wakeup_detach_irq(struct device *dev)
{
struct wakeup_source *ws;
- spin_lock_irq(dev-power.lock);
ws = dev-power.wakeup;
- if (!ws)
- goto unlock;
-
- ws-wakeirq = NULL;
-
-unlock:
- spin_unlock_irq(dev-power.lock);
+ if (ws)
+ ws-wakeirq = NULL;
}
/**
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev-power.wakeirq
Hi On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote: Hi On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 PM, Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com wrote: on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it fails, it will leave dev-power.wakeirq set to a dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() has chance to succeed. Cc: Tony Lindgren tml...@atomide.com Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com --- drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); if (err) - return err; + goto err_cleanup; return 0; + +err_cleanup: + spin_lock_irqsave(dev-power.lock, flags); + dev-power.wakeirq = NULL; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(dev-power.lock, flags); + Why here and not in the fuction that return the error? because the field was set here, why would I clear it elsewhere ? Clear now and even more from the other patch proposal. Michael -- balbi -- | Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Amarula Solutions BV | | COO - Founder Cruquiuskade 47 | | +31(0)851119172 Amsterdam 1018 AM NL | | [`as] http://www.amarulasolutions.com | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
