From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Frank.Li@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Invoke the callback directly
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:45:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260703084521.D8F4B1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260703-imx_mbox_rproc-v4-1-67b10560a861@linutronix.de>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Missing RCU read lock around idr_for_each() and idr_find() in preemptible context.
- [High] Improper devm cleanup order leaves mailbox active during driver teardown, causing Use-After-Free.
--
commit 24cd624015487c1ba761a43443263ce588b90c10
Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
remoteproc: imx_rproc: Invoke the callback directly
This commit removes the workqueue used for callback invocation in the
imx_rproc driver. The callback is now invoked directly from the threaded
IRQ handler since it runs in a preemptible context.
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 745ce52cd8226..a1f2b76ec8187 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
[ ... ]
> static void imx_rproc_rx_callback(struct mbox_client *cl, void *msg)
> {
> struct rproc *rproc = dev_get_drvdata(cl->dev);
>
> - queue_work(priv->workqueue, &priv->rproc_work);
> + idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, imx_rproc_notified_idr_cb, rproc);
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this lockless iteration
over the notifyids IDR lack RCU protection?
Because imx_rproc_rx_callback() now runs in a preemptible context (threaded
IRQ handler), it iterates over the rproc->notifyids IDR using idr_for_each()
without the rcu_read_lock().
The IDR API requires lockless readers to hold rcu_read_lock() to prevent radix
tree nodes from being freed during traversal. If a concurrent modification
like idr_remove() occurs during teardown, the RCU grace period could expire,
leading to a use-after-free on the IDR internal nodes.
> }
>
> static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct rproc *rproc, bool tx_block)
[ ... ]
> @@ -1273,17 +1253,6 @@ static int imx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> priv->ops = dcfg->ops;
>
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, rproc);
> - priv->workqueue = create_workqueue(dev_name(dev));
> - if (!priv->workqueue) {
> - dev_err(dev, "cannot create workqueue\n");
> - return -ENOMEM;
> - }
> -
> - ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, imx_rproc_destroy_workqueue, priv->workqueue);
> - if (ret)
> - return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to add devm destroy workqueue action\n");
> -
> - INIT_WORK(&priv->rproc_work, imx_rproc_vq_work);
>
> ret = imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(rproc, true);
> if (ret)
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but could the devm cleanup order in
imx_rproc_probe() lead to a use-after-free during driver teardown?
Earlier in imx_rproc_probe(), the mailbox cleanup action imx_rproc_free_mbox
is registered via devm_add_action_or_reset() before devm_rproc_add() is
called.
Because devm actions execute in LIFO order, devm_rproc_remove() executes
first, which tears down the remote processor and frees virtio subdevices and
their IDR entries.
This leaves a dangerous race window during driver unbind where the mailbox is
still fully active while the core remoteproc data structures are being torn
down. If a mailbox interrupt fires during this window, the RX handler will
access the notifyids IDR and rvring structures while they are concurrently
being modified or freed by rproc_del().
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260703-imx_mbox_rproc-v4-1-67b10560a861@linutronix.de?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-03 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-03 8:24 [PATCH v4] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Invoke the callback directly Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-03 8:45 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-03 9:44 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20260703084521.D8F4B1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=Frank.Li@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox