Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support
From: Dong Aisheng <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-25 05:07:09
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:59:47PM +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/24/2012 09:22 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:quoted
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:22:13PM +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:...quoted
quoted
The problem is this: Thread 1: Call of_node_to_gpiochip(), returns a gpio_chip. Thread 2: Unregisters the same gpio_chip that was returned above. Thread 1: Accesses the now unregistered (and possibly free'd) gpio_chip -> at best, bad data, at worst, OOPS.Correct. We did have this issue. Thanks for clarify.quoted
In order to prevent this, of_node_to_gpiochip() should take measures to prevent another thread from unregistering the gpio_chip until thread 1 has completed its step above. The existing of_get_named_gpio_flags() is safe from this, since gpiochip_find() acquires the GPIO lock, and all accesses to the fouond gpio chip occur with that lock held, inside the match function. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here.Why it looks to me of_get_named_gpio_flags has the same issue and also not safe? For of_node_to_gpiochip itself called in of_get_named_gpio_flags, it's safe.Uggh. Yes, I meant that of_node_to_gpiochip() itself doesn't have this issue, but you're right, it looks like of_get_named_gpio_flags() does.quoted
But after that, i'm suspecting it has the same issue as you described above, right? For example: int of_get_named_gpio_flags(struct device_node *np, const char *propname, int index, enum of_gpio_flags *flags) { ... gc = of_node_to_gpiochip(gpiospec.np); if (!gc) { pr_debug("%s: gpio controller %s isn't registered\n", np->full_name, gpiospec.np->full_name); ret = -ENODEV; goto err1; } ===> the gc may be unregistered here by another thread and even already have been freed, right? ret = gc->of_xlate(gc, &gpiospec, flags); ... } Maybe we need get the lock in of_node_to_gpiochip and release it by calling of_gpio_put(..) after using?Yes, something like that; it should take the module lock, not the gpio lock.
Okay, i will try to add it. Regards Dong Aisheng