lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Dangerous devm_request_irq() conversions
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:57:29PM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:27 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:12:36PM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 22, 2013 3:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It looks like a whole slew of devm_request_irq() conversions just got
> > > > applied to mainline and many of them are quite broken.
> > > >
> > > > Consider fd5231ce336e038037b4f0190a6838bdd6e17c6d or
> > > > c1879fe80c61f3be6f2ddb82509c2e7f92a484fe: the drivers udsed first to
> > > > free IRQ and then unregister the corresponding device ensuring that IRQ
> > > > handler, while it runs, has the device available. The mechanic
> > > > conversion to devm_request_irq() reverses the order of these operations
> > > > opening the race window where IRQ can reference device (or other
> > > > resource) that is already gone.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if these could be reverted and revioewed again for
> > > > correctness.
> > >
> > > Um, other RTC drivers already have been using devm_request_threaded_irq() or
> > > devm_request_irq() like this, before I added these patches.
> > >
> > > For example,
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-tegra.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-spear.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-mxc.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1553.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1511.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-snvs.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-imxdi.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-tx4939.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-mv.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-coh901331.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-stk17ta8.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-lpc32xx.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-tps65910.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-rc5t583.c
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, even more, some RTC drivers calls rtc_device_unregister() first,
> > > then calls free_irq() later.
> > >
> > > For example,
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-vr41xx.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-da9052.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-isl1208.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-88pm860x.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-mpc5121.c
> > > ./drivers/rtc/rtc-m48t59.c
> > >
> > >
> > > Please, don't argue revert without concrete reasons.
> >
> > What more concrete reason do you need? I explained to you the exact
> > reason on the patches I noticed before and also on the 2 commits
> > referenced above: blind conversion to devm_* changes order of operation
> > which may be deadly with IRQs (but others, like clocks and regulators,
> > are important too).
> >
> > The fact that crap slipped in the kernel before is not the valid reason
> > for adding more of the same crap.
> >
> > Please *understand* APIs you are using before making changes.
> >
> > >
> > > If these devm_request_threaded_irq() or devm_request_irq() make the problem,
> > > devm_free_irq() will be added later.
> >
> > And the point? If you use devm_request_irq() and then call
> > devm_free_irq() manually in all paths what you achieved is waste of
> > memory required for devm_* tracking.
>
> CC'ed Al Viro, Tejun Heo
>
>
> So, is there any report that the devm_request_threaded_irq() makes
> the deadly problem related IRQ in such cases?
>
> According to your comment, it seems that there is no reason to use
> devm_request_irq() or devm_request_threaded_irq().

devm_request_irq() or devm_request_threaded_irq() are OK if:

1. _ALL_ resources in the driver are controlled by devm_* so that order
of freeing is not disturbed, or

2. You can shut off interrupts in the chip so that interrupts will not
be generated even though IRQ handler is installed, or

3. Some combination of above.

Note that it is not only interrupts, other resources like clocks and
regulators and pins and other objects are important too, IRQ is just the
most dangerous.

>
> Please, argue that it would be better to deprecate devm_request_irq()
> or devm_request_threaded_irq().
>

No, they do have their use. But probably people doing the conversion
should be required to put $100 in escrow ;)

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-22 09:42    [W:0.049 / U:1.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site