From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Cong Nguyen" <congnt264@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: shwdt: register device only after full driver init
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 12:48:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260914124853.6EA241F00893@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260914123609.2186477-1-congnt264@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Missing timer synchronization in `sh_wdt_remove` leads to a use-after-free when the `wdt` structure is automatically freed.
- [High] Calling non-synchronous `timer_delete` while holding `wdt->lock` in `sh_wdt_stop` allows the timer callback to execute concurrently, accessing suspended hardware and re-arming itself.
- [High] `sh_wdt_start` ignores the return values of `pm_runtime_get_sync` and `clk_enable`, potentially accessing hardware registers while powered down.
--
commit f766a8cc3f43e37c436ed7a87ffc702a473f6839
Author: Cong Nguyen <congnt264@gmail.com>
watchdog: shwdt: register device only after full driver init
sh_wdt_probe() calls watchdog_register_device() -- exposing
/dev/watchdogN -- before timer_setup() and pm_runtime_enable() run. A
start command landing in that window calls mod_timer() on an
uninitialized timer (NULL ->function) and resumes via
pm_runtime_get_sync() before PM is enabled.
Move timer_setup() and pm_runtime_enable() before the register call,
matching the order already used by rzg2l_wdt.c/rzv2h_wdt.c. Add
pm_runtime_disable() on the now-possible post-enable register-failure
path.
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c
> index 719f100aae60d..c22b8e7604765 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c
> @@ -263,19 +263,20 @@ static int sh_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "configured with heartbeat=%d sec (nowayout=%d)\n",
> sh_wdt_dev.timeout, nowayout);
>
> + timer_setup(&wdt->timer, sh_wdt_ping, 0);
> + wdt->timer.expires = next_ping_period(clock_division_ratio);
> +
> + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> +
> rc = watchdog_register_device(&sh_wdt_dev);
> if (unlikely(rc)) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't register watchdog (err=%d)\n", rc);
> + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> return rc;
> }
>
> - timer_setup(&wdt->timer, sh_wdt_ping, 0);
> - wdt->timer.expires = next_ping_period(clock_division_ratio);
> -
> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "initialized.\n");
>
> - pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> -
> return 0;
> }
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but missing timer synchronization in
sh_wdt_remove() could lead to a use-after-free when the wdt structure is
automatically freed:
drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c:sh_wdt_remove() {
watchdog_unregister_device(&sh_wdt_dev);
pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
}
If the driver is unbound while the watchdog timer is active, sh_wdt_remove()
completes and returns without stopping or synchronizing the timer. The devres
framework then immediately frees the wdt structure allocated via
devm_kzalloc().
Could the lingering asynchronous timer eventually fire and dereference the
freed memory in sh_wdt_ping()? Would it be safer to explicitly stop and
synchronize the timer here before returning?
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but calling non-synchronous
timer_delete() while holding wdt->lock in sh_wdt_stop() allows the timer
callback to execute concurrently:
drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c:sh_wdt_stop() {
...
spin_lock_irqsave(&wdt->lock, flags);
timer_delete(&wdt->timer);
csr = sh_wdt_read_csr();
csr &= ~WTCSR_TME;
sh_wdt_write_csr(csr);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wdt->lock, flags);
clk_disable(wdt->clk);
pm_runtime_put_sync(wdt->dev);
...
}
If sh_wdt_ping() runs on CPU 1 just as sh_wdt_stop() runs on CPU 0, CPU 1
blocks on wdt->lock. CPU 0 calls timer_delete(), disables the clock,
drops the lock, and calls pm_runtime_put_sync().
CPU 1 then acquires the lock and continues execution in sh_wdt_ping():
drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c:sh_wdt_ping() {
...
csr = sh_wdt_read_csr();
csr &= ~WTCSR_IOVF;
sh_wdt_write_csr(csr);
sh_wdt_write_cnt(0);
mod_timer(&wdt->timer, next_ping_period(clock_division_ratio));
...
}
Can this sequence allow CPU 1 to access the now unclocked and suspended
hardware registers, and then call mod_timer() to blindly re-arm the callback?
Note that simply changing timer_delete() to timer_delete_sync() inside the
spinlock would cause a deadlock against the callback.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but sh_wdt_start() ignores the return values of
pm_runtime_get_sync() and clk_enable():
drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c:sh_wdt_start() {
...
pm_runtime_get_sync(wdt->dev);
clk_enable(wdt->clk);
spin_lock_irqsave(&wdt->lock, flags);
...
}
If either fails, the device remains suspended or unclocked, but the code
proceeds to read and write to wdt->base.
Could this result in a bus fault due to accessing unclocked or powered-down
hardware if power or clock management fails when the device is opened?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260914123609.2186477-1-congnt264@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-14 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-14 12:36 [PATCH] watchdog: shwdt: register device only after full driver init Cong Nguyen
2026-09-14 12:48 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-17 0:23 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260914124853.6EA241F00893@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=congnt264@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.