Re: [TECH TOPIC] Driver probe fails and register succeeds

Dmitry Torokhov
2022-06-24T01:00:10Z

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 04:57:11PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On 6/23/22 5:30 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > Hi Shuah,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:28:09PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > >> On 6/23/22 5:13 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:05:30PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > >>>> I have been debugging a driver probe failure and noticed that driver gets
> > >>>> registered even when driver probe fails. This is not a new behavior. The
> > >>>> code in question is the same since 2005.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> dmesg will say that a driver probe failed with error code and then the very
> > >>>> next message from interface core that says driver is registered successfully.
> > >>>> It will create sysfs interfaces.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The probe failure is propagated from the drive probe routine all the way up to
> > >>>> __driver_attach(). __driver_attach() ignores the error and and returns success.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __device_driver_lock(dev, dev->parent);
> > >>>> driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
> > >>>> __device_driver_unlock(dev, dev->parent);
> > >>>>
> > >>>> return 0;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Interface driver register goes on to create sysfs entries as if driver probe
> > >>>> worked. It handles errors from driver_register() and unwinds the register
> > >>>> properly, however in this case it doesn't know about the failure.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> At this point the driver is defunct with sysfs interfaces. User has to run
> > >>>> rmmod to get rid of the defunct driver.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Simply returning the error from __driver_attach() didn't work as expected.
> > >>>> I figured it would fail since not all interface drivers can handle errors
> > >>>> from driver probe routines.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I propose that we discuss the scenario to find possible solutions to avoid
> > >>>> defunct drivers.
> > >>>
> > >>> This seems to be the expected behaviour to me. The probe failure doesn't
> > >>> necessarily indicate that the driver is at fault, it means that
> > >>> something went wrong when associating a particular device with the
> > >>> driver. It could be that the device is faulty for instance, and that
> > >>> shouldn't prevent the driver from being registered, especially if
> > >>> multiple instances of the device can be present in the system, as that
> > >>> would then prevent any of those instances from working due to one faulty
> > >>> device.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed. This behavior works well in the cases of hardware/device failures
> > >> that cause probe failure. The case I am seeing is a driver bug that causes
> > >> probe failure.
> > >
> > > Is there a way for the kernel to determine that the probe failure was
> > > caused by a buggy driver and not a faulty device ?
> > >
> >
> > That has to be explored.
> >
> > >>> What other behaviour would you expect ?
> > >>
> > >> I am looking to see if we can propagate the error to the interface driver to
> > >> handle instead of leaving the defunct driver. This isn't an easy problem to
> > >> solve though. As you mentioned driver probe could fail if device is bad
> > >> and we want the driver to handle the others.
> > >>
> > >> The fact is we will end up with defunct drivers in some cases. If user notices
> > >> the error they could go clean it up. My main concern is the sysfs interfaces
> > >> hanging around. The desired behavior would be not leaving defunct drivers with
> > >> associated sysfs files.
> > >
> > > I don't think the driver is "defunct". It has been loaded successfully,
> > > and it's fully operational, just not bound to any device.
> > >
> >
> > Not in the case I am debugging. It won't be successfully bound any device.
> > That is what I meant by defunct. Maybe there is a better word to use.
> >
> > The driver releases all resources in its probe failure path.
>
> If the driver is bad there is no way for the kernel to know.
>
> Are you perhaps looking for a technique to unload the driver if another
> driver knows that it is indeed ok to unload the driver if it does not
> attach to its intended device?
>
> You mention the interface driver getting involved. The interface driver
> could do something like:
>
> device_add(dev);
> device_lock(dev);
> if (!dev->driver)
> driver_unregister(drv);
> device_unlock(dev);
>
> ...but that would need to know that nothing else needs @drv and that
> @drv has been registered and ->probe() run synchronous with
> device_add(). That does not work with the async and deferred probing
> options.

Nor does this work for drivers for devices that might be hot-plugged,
instantiated via sysfs/new_id, etc, etc.

So if you want to fail driver registration because you know that you are
dealing with a singleton platform device with no additional dependencies
then it has to be done in the driver itself, not by the driver core.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry