devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>,
	Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/18] of: overlay: add tests to validate kfrees from overlay removal
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:01:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f6aaf5be-ed08-a055-c270-4284ed6532a9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181018170303.GA15557@bogus>

On 10/18/18 10:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 07:37:21PM -0700, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> Add checks:
>>   - attempted kfree due to refcount reaching zero before overlay
>>     is removed
>>   - properties linked to an overlay node when the node is removed
>>   - node refcount > one during node removal in a changeset destroy,
>>     if the node was created by the changeset
>>
>> After applying this patch, several validation warnings will be
>> reported from the devicetree unittest during boot due to
>> pre-existing devicetree bugs. The warnings will be similar to:
>>
>>   OF: ERROR: of_node_release() overlay node /testcase-data/overlay-node/test-bus/test-unittest11/test-unittest111 contains unexpected properties
>>   OF: ERROR: memory leak - destroy cset entry: attach overlay node /testcase-data-2/substation@100/hvac-medium-2 expected refcount 1 instead of 2.  of_node_get() / of_node_put() are unbalanced for this node.
> 
> These messages could be formatted more consistently. Put the path either 
> at the beginning (after any prefix) or end. Beginning is more like a 
> compiler error. End puts what the problem is before it's off the edge of 
> the screen. 

The inconsistency makes the word flow more natural, but I agree that
consistency is more important.  I think I can make all the messages
say the problem first, then provide the path at the end.


>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v3:
>>   - Add expected value of refcount for destroy cset entry error.  Also
>>     explain the cause of the error.
>>
>>  drivers/of/dynamic.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/of/overlay.c |  1 +
>>  include/linux/of.h   | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>  3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/dynamic.c b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>> index f4f8ed9b5454..24c97b7a050f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>> @@ -330,6 +330,25 @@ void of_node_release(struct kobject *kobj)
>>  	if (!of_node_check_flag(node, OF_DYNAMIC))
>>  		return;
>>  
>> +	if (of_node_check_flag(node, OF_OVERLAY)) {
>> +
>> +		if (!of_node_check_flag(node, OF_OVERLAY_FREE_CSET)) {
> 
> I worry the flags are getting unwieldy.

I considered that.  I think we are still ok, and I don't have a better
solution than adding flag values.  (I did have some Rube Goldberg
variations.)


> 
>> +			/* premature refcount of zero, do not free memory */
>> +			pr_err("ERROR: memory leak %s() overlay node %pOF before free overlay changeset\n",
>> +			       __func__, node);
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * If node->properties non-empty then properties were added
>> +		 * to this node either by different overlay that has not
>> +		 * yet been removed, or by a non-overlay mechanism.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (node->properties)
>> +			pr_err("ERROR: %s() overlay node %pOF contains unexpected properties\n",
>> +			       __func__, node);
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	property_list_free(node->properties);
>>  	property_list_free(node->deadprops);
>>  
>> @@ -434,6 +453,16 @@ struct device_node *__of_node_dup(const struct device_node *np,
>>  
>>  static void __of_changeset_entry_destroy(struct of_changeset_entry *ce)
>>  {
>> +	if (ce->action == OF_RECONFIG_ATTACH_NODE &&
>> +	    of_node_check_flag(ce->np, OF_OVERLAY)) {
>> +		if (kref_read(&ce->np->kobj.kref) > 1) {
>> +			pr_err("ERROR: memory leak - destroy cset entry: attach overlay node %pOF expected refcount 1 instead of %d.  of_node_get() / of_node_put() are unbalanced for this node.\n",
>> +			       ce->np, kref_read(&ce->np->kobj.kref));
>> +		} else {
>> +			of_node_set_flag(ce->np, OF_OVERLAY_FREE_CSET);
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	of_node_put(ce->np);
>>  	list_del(&ce->node);
>>  	kfree(ce);
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> index eda57ef12fd0..1176cb4b6e4e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> @@ -373,6 +373,7 @@ static int add_changeset_node(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs,
>>  			return -ENOMEM;
>>  
>>  		tchild->parent = target_node;
>> +		of_node_set_flag(tchild, OF_OVERLAY);
>>  
>>  		ret = of_changeset_attach_node(&ovcs->cset, tchild);
>>  		if (ret)
>> diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
>> index 4d25e4f952d9..aa1dafaec6ae 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/of.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/of.h
>> @@ -138,11 +138,16 @@ static inline void of_node_put(struct device_node *node) { }
>>  extern struct device_node *of_stdout;
>>  extern raw_spinlock_t devtree_lock;
>>  
>> -/* flag descriptions (need to be visible even when !CONFIG_OF) */
>> -#define OF_DYNAMIC	1 /* node and properties were allocated via kmalloc */
>> -#define OF_DETACHED	2 /* node has been detached from the device tree */
>> -#define OF_POPULATED	3 /* device already created for the node */
>> -#define OF_POPULATED_BUS	4 /* of_platform_populate recursed to children of this node */
>> +/*
>> + * struct device_node flag descriptions
>> + * (need to be visible even when !CONFIG_OF)
>> + */
>> +#define OF_DYNAMIC		1 /* (and properties) allocated via kmalloc */
>> +#define OF_DETACHED		2 /* detached from the device tree */
>> +#define OF_POPULATED		3 /* device already created */
>> +#define OF_POPULATED_BUS	4 /* platform bus created for children */
>> +#define OF_OVERLAY		5 /* allocated for an overlay */
>> +#define OF_OVERLAY_FREE_CSET	6 /* in overlay cset being freed */
>>  
>>  #define OF_BAD_ADDR	((u64)-1)
>>  
>> -- 
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-18 19:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-16  2:37 [PATCH v4 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 01/18] of: overlay: add tests to validate kfrees from overlay removal frowand.list
2018-10-17 21:30   ` Alan Tull
2018-10-18 20:24     ` Alan Tull
2018-10-18 17:03   ` Rob Herring
2018-10-18 19:01     ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 02/18] of: overlay: add missing of_node_put() after add new node to changeset frowand.list
2018-10-18 17:05   ` Rob Herring
2018-10-18 19:02     ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 03/18] of: overlay: add missing of_node_get() in __of_attach_node_sysfs frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 04/18] powerpc/pseries: add of_node_put() in dlpar_detach_node() frowand.list
2018-10-18 17:09   ` Rob Herring
2018-10-18 19:09     ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-19 16:10       ` Rob Herring
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 05/18] of: overlay: use prop add changeset entry for property in new nodes frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 06/18] of: overlay: do not duplicate properties from overlay for " frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 07/18] of: dynamic: change type of of_{at,de}tach_node() to void frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 08/18] of: overlay: reorder fields in struct fragment frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 09/18] of: overlay: validate overlay properties #address-cells and #size-cells frowand.list
2018-10-18 18:13   ` Rob Herring
2018-10-18 19:13     ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 10/18] of: overlay: make all pr_debug() and pr_err() messages unique frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 11/18] of: overlay: test case of two fragments adding same node frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 12/18] of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments add or delete " frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 13/18] of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 14/18] of: unittest: remove unused of_unittest_apply_overlay() argument frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 15/18] of: overlay: set node fields from properties when add new overlay node frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 16/18] of: unittest: allow base devicetree to have symbol metadata frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 17/18] of: unittest: find overlays[] entry by name instead of index frowand.list
2018-10-16  2:37 ` [PATCH v4 18/18] of: unittest: initialize args before calling of_*parse_*() frowand.list
2018-10-16  9:47 ` [PATCH v4 00/18] of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes Michael Ellerman
2018-10-17  3:08   ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-17 21:16     ` Alan Tull

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=f6aaf5be-ed08-a055-c270-4284ed6532a9@gmail.com \
    --to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=atull@kernel.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mdf@kernel.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.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).