lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: check the return value of nvmem_unregister()
From
Date
Am 28.12.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Bartosz Golaszewski:
> 2017-12-28 12:28 GMT+01:00 Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>:
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 03:10:38PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> This function can fail with -EBUSY, but we don't check its return
>>> value in at24_remove(). Bail-out of remove() if nvmem_unregister()
>>> doesn't succeed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 6 ++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>>> index e79833d62284..fb21e1c45115 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>>> @@ -684,11 +684,13 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>>> static int at24_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>> {
>>> struct at24_data *at24;
>>> - int i;
>>> + int i, ret;
>>>
>>> at24 = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>>
>>> - nvmem_unregister(at24->nvmem);
>>> + ret = nvmem_unregister(at24->nvmem);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> I don't this makes much sense as a driver cannot refuse an unbind by
>> returning an errno from remove(). The return value is simply ignored,
>> remove() will never be called again, and you'd leave everything in an
>> inconsistent state.
>>
>
> Cc: Srinivas
>
> Hi Johan,
>
> I blindly assumed that if there's a return value in remove() then
> someone cares about it. In that case all users of nvmem_unregister()
> that check the return value and bail-out of remove() on failure are
> wrong and in the (very unlikely) event that this routine fails, we
> leak all resources.
>
>> It looks like the nvmem code grabs a reference to the owning module
>> in __nvmem_device_get() which would at least prevent a module unload
>> while another driver is using the device. And the (sysfs) userspace
>> interface should be fine as device removal is handled by the kernfs
>> code.
>
> Indeed. I believe we should remove the -EBUSY return case from
> nvmem_register() and just do what gpiolib does - scream loud
> (dev_crit()) when someone forces a module unload or otherwise
> unregisters the device if some cells are still requested. This would
> also allow us to eventually add a devres variant for nvmem_register().
>

Please see also discussion here, it touches the same topic.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/4/77

Rgds, Heiner

> What do you think Srinivas?
>
> Best regards,
> Bartosz Golaszewski
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-29 00:06    [W:0.030 / U:19.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site