From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] power: vexpress: fix corruption in notifier registration
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:56:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180618145608.GA26780@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1529322007-4637-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:40:07PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Vexpress platforms provide two different restart handlers: SYS_REBOOT
> that restart the entire system, while DB_RESET only restarts the
> daughter board containing the CPU. DB_RESET is overridden by SYS_REBOOT
> if it exists.
>
> notifier_chain_register used in register_restart_handler by design
> allows notifier to be registered once only, however vexpress restart
> notifier can get registered twice.
Nit: I would say "notifier_chain_register() relies on notifiers to be
registered only once to work properly"; put it differently, it allows
notifiers to be registered twice (ie it does nothing to prevent it),
that's why we have this issue.
> When this happen it corrupts list of notifiers, as result some
> notifiers can be not called on proper event, traverse on list can be
> cycled forever, and second unregister can access already freed memory.
>
> So far, since this was the only restart handler in the system, no issue
> was observed even if the same notifier was registered twice. However
> commit 6c5c0d48b686 ("watchdog: sp805: add restart handler") added
> support for SP805 restart handlers and since the system under test
> contains two vexpress restart and two SP805 watchdog instances, it was
> observed that during the boot traversing the restart handler list looped
> forever as there's a cycle in that list resulting in boot hang.
>
> This patch fixes the issues by ensuring that the notifier is installed
> only once.
>
> Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/power/reset/vexpress-poweroff.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/vexpress-poweroff.c b/drivers/power/reset/vexpress-poweroff.c
> index 102f95a09460..cdc68eb06a91 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/reset/vexpress-poweroff.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/vexpress-poweroff.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static void vexpress_reset_do(struct device *dev, const char *what)
> }
>
> static struct device *vexpress_power_off_device;
> +static atomic_t vexpress_restart_nb_refcnt = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>
> static void vexpress_power_off(void)
> {
> @@ -96,13 +97,16 @@ static const struct of_device_id vexpress_reset_of_match[] = {
>
> static int _vexpress_register_restart_handler(struct device *dev)
> {
> - int err;
> + int err = 0;
Nit: I do not not see why you need to initialize err.
> vexpress_restart_device = dev;
It is unclear to me how the !vexpress_restart_device sentinel is
used while registering FUNC_RESET. It is unrelated to this patch
but if the registration below fails for FUNC_REBOOT can we end
up in a situation where vexpress_restart_device is initialized
with no restart handler registered ?
By looking at it I am not a big fan of the vexpress_restart_device
global variable it has been there since we merged this code but
its usage is a bit obscure.
Anyway, thanks for having a look and fixing the issue.
Lorenzo
> - err = register_restart_handler(&vexpress_restart_nb);
> - if (err) {
> - dev_err(dev, "cannot register restart handler (err=%d)\n", err);
> - return err;
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&vexpress_restart_nb_refcnt) == 1) {
> + err = register_restart_handler(&vexpress_restart_nb);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot register restart handler (err=%d)\n", err);
> + atomic_dec(&vexpress_restart_nb_refcnt);
> + return err;
> + }
> }
> device_create_file(dev, &dev_attr_active);
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-18 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-18 11:40 [PATCH] power: vexpress: fix corruption in notifier registration Sudeep Holla
2018-06-18 14:56 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2018-06-18 15:51 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-18 15:54 ` [PATCH v2] " Sudeep Holla
2018-06-22 12:47 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-07-06 11:34 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-07-06 14:33 ` Sebastian Reichel
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=20180618145608.GA26780@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).