[PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev->power.wakeirq
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 Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi --- 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; } /** -- 2.4.4 -- 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" 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 > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > --- > > 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
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi
> ---
> 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 wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 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 >> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi >> > --- >> > 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
Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev->power.wakeirq
* Rafael J. Wysocki [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 > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > --- > > 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 -- 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 [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 > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > > --- > > > 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 Cool, thanks for testing Tony. Rafael, I'm fine with your version too. FWIW: Reported-by: Felipe Balbi -- 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 wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 12:40:53AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Rafael J. Wysocki [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 >> > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi >> > > --- >> > > 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 > > Cool, thanks for testing Tony. Rafael, I'm fine with your version too. > FWIW: > > Reported-by: Felipe Balbi 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
