Re: [PATCH] hid: hid-picolcd: fix possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug

["Bruno Prémont" <bonbons@sysophe.eu>]

Hi Jia-Ju,

I've had a deeper look at the code (possibly also applies to hid-lg4ff).


The hdev->ll_driver->request (at least on USB bus which is the only one
that matters for hid-picolcd) points to:
  usbhid_request() from drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c

This one directly calls usbhid_submit_report() which then directly calls
__usbhid_submit_report() under spinlock.

Thus for USB bus there is no possible sleep left.


Just moving the hid_hw_request() calls out of the spinlock is
incorrect though as it would introduce the possibility of unexpected
concurrent initialization/submissions of reports from the distinct
sub-drivers. The report pointer used is not call-private but comes from
feature description and is filled with data on each call within the
spinlock.


The question could be whether the generic fallback in hid_hw_request()
should be adjusted to be non-sleeping.
It has been introduced rather more recently than both drivers you
detected.


Best regards,
Bruno Prémont

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 20:11:47 Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> On 2019/12/18 16:41, Bruno Prémont wrote:
> > Hi Jia-Ju,
> >
> > Your checker has been looking at fallback implementation for
> > the might-sleep hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL).
> >
> > Did you have a look at the low-lever bus-driver implementations:
> >    hdev->ll_driver->request
> >                     ^^^^^^^
> >
> > Are those all sleeping as well or maybe they don't sleep?\  
> 
> In fact, I find that a function possibly-related to this function 
> pointer can sleep:
> 
> drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c, 97:
>      kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL) in ishtp_hid_request
> 
> But I am not quite sure whether this function is really referenced by 
> the function pointer, so I did not report it.
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> Jia-Ju Bai