From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
To: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Cc: sashiko@lists.linux.dev, conor+dt@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Frank.Li@kernel.org,
imx@lists.linux.dev, robh@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] of: dynamic: Fix overlayed devices not probing because of fw_devlink
Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 15:31:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260513153100.1b499fae@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260512211643.EB5A6C2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org>
Hi all,
On Tue, 12 May 2026 21:16:43 +0000
sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] Missing `dev->fwnode` validation in `fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers()` leads to a kernel panic if the device's fwnode is NULL.
> --
>
> commit eebf7e6f50a0aa0439d5a1099141444a70ec8219
> Author: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@kernel.org>
>
> of: dynamic: Fix overlayed devices not probing because of fw_devlink
>
> When an overlay is applied to an already probed device, fw_devlink logic
> is rerun. This allows newly created dangling consumers of overlayed device
> tree nodes to become consumers of the target device.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240411235623.1260061-3-saravanak@google.com/
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > index bd2ddf2aab505..478aa3fbf1e83 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > @@ -235,6 +235,79 @@ static void __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(child, new_sup);
> > }
> >
> > +static void fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct fwnode_handle *child;
> > +
> > + guard(mutex)(&fwnode_link_lock);
> > +
> > + fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(dev->fwnode, child)
> > + __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(child, dev->fwnode);
> > + __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers(dev);
> > +}
>
> Is it possible for dev->fwnode to be NULL here?
Well dev->fwnode is checked for NULL in fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()
iterator.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc3/source/include/linux/property.h#L175
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc3/source/drivers/base/property.c#L840
Adding an additional check for dev->fwnode is not needed.
Best regards,
Hervé
>
> The original logic in device_links_driver_bound() was protected by a
> dev->fwnode check. The newly added caller fw_devlink_refresh_fwnode()
> appears to call this without checking if dev->fwnode is still valid:
>
> fw_devlink_refresh_fwnode()
> dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(fwnode);
> ...
> if (dev->links.status == DL_DEV_DRIVER_BOUND) {
> fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(dev);
>
> If dev->fwnode is NULL, such as when it is cleared by a concurrent
> device_remove_of_node() before device_del() runs, the nested call to
> __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers() will dereference it:
>
> __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = dev->fwnode;
> ...
> list_for_each_entry_safe(link, tmp, &fwnode->consumers, s_hook) {
>
> Could this lead to a crash when &fwnode->consumers is evaluated? Would it
> make sense to add an explicit check for !dev->fwnode at the start of
> fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers() to mirror the structural safety
> previously provided in device_links_driver_bound()?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1312,16 +1385,8 @@ void device_links_driver_bound(struct device *dev)
> > * child firmware node.
> > */
> > if (dev->fwnode && dev->fwnode->dev == dev) {
> > - struct fwnode_handle *child;
> > -
> > fwnode_links_purge_suppliers(dev->fwnode);
> > -
> > - guard(mutex)(&fwnode_link_lock);
> > -
> > - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(dev->fwnode, child)
> > - __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(child,
> > - dev->fwnode);
> > - __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers(dev);
> > + fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(dev);
> > }
> > device_remove_file(dev, &dev_attr_waiting_for_supplier);
> >
>
--
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-13 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-11 15:57 [PATCH v7 0/3] lan966x pci device: Add support for SFPs, core part Herve Codina
2026-05-11 15:57 ` [PATCH v7 1/3] Revert "treewide: Fix probing of devices in DT overlays" Herve Codina
2026-05-11 15:57 ` [PATCH v7 2/3] of: dynamic: Fix overlayed devices not probing because of fw_devlink Herve Codina
2026-05-12 21:16 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-13 13:31 ` Herve Codina [this message]
2026-05-11 15:57 ` [PATCH v7 3/3] driver core: Avoid warning when removing a device while its supplier is unbinding Herve Codina
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=20260513153100.1b499fae@bootlin.com \
--to=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=Frank.Li@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox