lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
> In the Linux kernel side, acpi_get_table() hasn't been fully balanced by
> acpi_put_table() invocations. So it is not a good timing to report errors.
> The strict balanced validation count check should only be enabled after
> confirming that all kernel side invocations are safe.

We've been living with this bug for 7 years, let's just go fix all
acpi_get_table() invocations to make sure they have a corresponding
acpi_put_table().

>
> Thus this patch removes the fatal error but leaves the error report to
> indicate the leak so that developers can notice the required engineering
> change. Reported by Dan Williams, fixed by Lv Zheng.
>
> Reported-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> index 5a968a7..9e7d95cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> @@ -422,7 +422,6 @@ acpi_tb_get_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc,
> "Table %p, Validation count is zero after increment\n",
> table_desc));
> table_desc->validation_count--;
> - return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_LIMIT);

If you want to leave the error report turn it into a WARN_ON_ONCE() so
it doesn't keep triggering, but I'd rather we just focus on the
missing acpi_put_table() calls.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-26 07:01    [W:0.074 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site