lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] rtc: snvs: fix possible race condition
Date
Hi, Alexandre

> On 19/07/2019 19:04:21+0000, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 02:57 +0000, Anson Huang wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do worry that handling the irq before the rtc device is
> > > > registered could still result in a crash. From what I saw, the
> > > > irq path in snvs only uses driver state members that are fully
> > > > initialized for the most part, and the allocated but unregistered
> > > > data->rtc is only used in one call to rtc_update_irq(), which appears to
> be ok with this.
> > > >
> > > > But it is not that hard to imagine that something could go into
> > > > the rtc core that assumes call like rtc_update_irq() are only made on
> registered devices.
> > > >
> > > > If there was a way to do it, I think allocating the irq in a
> > > > masked state and then unmasking it as part of the final
> > > > registration call to make the device go live would be a safer and more
> general pattern.
> > >
> > > It makes sense, I think we can just move the devm_request_irq() to
> > > after rtc_register_device(), It will make sure everything is ready before
> IRQ is enabled. Will send out a V2 patch.
> >
> > That will mean registering the rtc, then unregistering it if the irq
> > request fails. More of a pain to write this failure path.
> >
> > Alexandre, is it part of rtc core design that rtc_update_irq() might
> > be called on a rtc device that is properly allocated, but not
> > registered yet?
>
> Yes, the main reason of the change of API was exactly to handle this.

What about this patch's status? Should we continue or any change needed?

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1132481/

Thanks,
Anson

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-13 11:23    [W:0.042 / U:16.748 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site