Re: [PATCH -next] pwm: img: Fix PM reference leak in img_pwm_enable()
From: Uwe Kleine-König <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-28 17:01:23
Also in:
linux-pwm, lkml
Hello Zou, On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 08:38:39AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 07:45:14PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:quoted
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 6:52 AM Uwe Kleine-König [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:57:17AM +0800, Zou Wei wrote:quoted
pm_runtime_get_sync will increment pm usage counter even it failed. Forgetting to putting operation will result in reference leak here. Fix it by replacing it with pm_runtime_resume_and_get to keep usage counter balanced. Reported-by: Hulk Robot <redacted> Signed-off-by: Zou Wei <redacted> --- drivers/pwm/pwm-img.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-img.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-img.c index cc37054..11b16ec 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-img.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-img.c@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static int img_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) struct img_pwm_chip *pwm_chip = to_img_pwm_chip(chip); int ret; - ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev); + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(chip->dev); if (ret < 0) return ret;This patch looks right with my limited understanding of pm_runtime. A similar issue in this driver was fixed in commit ca162ce98110 ("pwm: img: Call pm_runtime_put() in pm_runtime_get_sync() failed case") where (even though the commit log talks about pm_runtime_put()) a call to pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() was added in the error path. I added the PM guys to Cc, maybe they can advise about the right thing to do here. Does it make sense to use the same idiom in both img_pwm_enable() and img_pwm_config()?I think so. And calling pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() in the img_pwm_enable() error path would work too.Do you care to clean this up accordingly and send a new patch?
Note that Thierry applied your initial patch regardless of the inconsistency. Still I'd like to see this done in a consistent way. Do you care to follow up with a patch that unifies the behaviour? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 488 bytes