On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:52:17PM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 05.02.21 18:25, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 08:48:11AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > >>> Thanks for pointing this out. I'd strongly support Jason's proposal: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/[email protected]/ > >>> > >>> It's the best long-term way to fix this. > >> > >> Really, no it's not. It introduces extra mechanism we don't need. > > > >> To recap the issue: character devices already have an automatic > >> mechanism which holds a reference to the struct device while the > >> character node is open so the default is to release resources on final > >> put of the struct device. > > > > The refcount on the struct device only keeps the memory alive, it > > doesn't say anything about the ops. We still need to lock and check > > the ops each and every time they are used. > > > > The fact cdev goes all the way till fput means we don't need the extra > > get/put I suggested to Lino at all. > > > >> The practical consequence of this model is that if you allocate a chip > >> structure with tpm_chip_alloc() you have to release it again by doing a > >> put of *both* devices. > > > > The final put of the devs should be directly after the > > cdev_device_del(), not in a devm. This became all confused because the > > devs was created during alloc, not register. Having a device that is > > initialized but will never be added is weird. > > > > See sketch below. > > > >> Stefan noticed the latter, so we got the bogus patch 8979b02aaf1d > >> ("tpm: Fix reference count to main device") applied which simply breaks > >> the master/slave model by not taking a reference on the master for the > >> slave. I'm not sure why I didn't notice the problem with this fix at > >> the time, but attention must have been elsewhere. > > > > Well, this is sort of OK because we never use the devs in TPM1, so we > > end up freeing the chip with a positive refcount on the devs, which is > > weird but not a functional bug. > > > > Jason > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c > > index ddaeceb7e10910..e07193a0dd4438 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c > > @@ -344,7 +344,6 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_alloc(struct device *pdev, > > chip->dev_num = rc; > > > > device_initialize(&chip->dev); > > - device_initialize(&chip->devs); > > > > chip->dev.class = tpm_class; > > chip->dev.class->shutdown_pre = tpm_class_shutdown; > > @@ -352,29 +351,12 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_alloc(struct device *pdev, > > chip->dev.parent = pdev; > > chip->dev.groups = chip->groups; > > > > - chip->devs.parent = pdev; > > - chip->devs.class = tpmrm_class; > > - chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release; > > - /* get extra reference on main device to hold on > > - * behalf of devs. This holds the chip structure > > - * while cdevs is in use. The corresponding put > > - * is in the tpm_devs_release (TPM2 only) > > - */ > > - if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) > > - get_device(&chip->dev); > > - > > if (chip->dev_num == 0) > > chip->dev.devt = MKDEV(MISC_MAJOR, TPM_MINOR); > > else > > chip->dev.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num); > > > > - chip->devs.devt = > > - MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES); > > - > > rc = dev_set_name(&chip->dev, "tpm%d", chip->dev_num); > > - if (rc) > > - goto out; > > - rc = dev_set_name(&chip->devs, "tpmrm%d", chip->dev_num); > > if (rc) > > goto out; > > > > @@ -382,9 +364,7 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_alloc(struct device *pdev, > > chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_VIRTUAL; > > > > cdev_init(&chip->cdev, &tpm_fops); > > - cdev_init(&chip->cdevs, &tpmrm_fops); > > chip->cdev.owner = THIS_MODULE; > > - chip->cdevs.owner = THIS_MODULE; > > > > rc = tpm2_init_space(&chip->work_space, TPM2_SPACE_BUFFER_SIZE); > > if (rc) { > > @@ -396,7 +376,6 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_alloc(struct device *pdev, > > return chip; > > > > out: > > - put_device(&chip->devs); > > put_device(&chip->dev); > > return ERR_PTR(rc); > > } > > @@ -445,13 +424,33 @@ static int tpm_add_char_device(struct tpm_chip *chip) > > } > > > > if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) { > > + device_initialize(&chip->devs); > > + chip->devs.parent = pdev; > > + chip->devs.class = tpmrm_class; > > + rc = dev_set_name(&chip->devs, "tpmrm%d", chip->dev_num); > > + if (rc) > > + goto out_put_devs; > > + > > + /* > > + * get extra reference on main device to hold on behalf of > > devs. > > + * This holds the chip structure while cdevs is in use. The > > + * corresponding put is in the tpm_devs_release. > > + */ > > + get_device(&chip->dev); > > + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release; > > + > > + chip->devs.devt = > > + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES); > > + cdev_init(&chip->cdevs, &tpmrm_fops); > > + chip->cdevs.owner = THIS_MODULE; > > + > > rc = cdev_device_add(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs); > > if (rc) { > > dev_err(&chip->devs, > > "unable to cdev_device_add() %s, major %d, > > minor %d, err=%d\n", > > dev_name(&chip->devs), MAJOR(chip->devs.devt), > > MINOR(chip->devs.devt), rc); > > - return rc; > > + goto out_put_devs; > > } > > } > > > > @@ -460,6 +459,10 @@ static int tpm_add_char_device(struct tpm_chip *chip) > > idr_replace(&dev_nums_idr, chip, chip->dev_num); > > mutex_unlock(&idr_lock); > > > > +out_put_devs: > > + put_device(&chip->devs); > > +out_del_dev: > > + cdev_device_del(&chip->cdev); > > return rc; > > } > > > > @@ -640,8 +643,10 @@ void tpm_chip_unregister(struct tpm_chip *chip) > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_TPM)) > > hwrng_unregister(&chip->hwrng); > > tpm_bios_log_teardown(chip); > > - if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) > > + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) { > > cdev_device_del(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs); > > + put_device(&chip->devs); > > + } > > tpm_del_char_device(chip); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_chip_unregister); > > > > I tested the solution you scetched and it fixes the issue for me. Will > you send a (real) patch for this?
One *option*: 1. You take the Jason's patch. 2. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.10/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by Just mentioning this, and spreading the knowledge about co-developed-by. > Best regards, > Lino /Jarkko
