* [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function @ 2021-10-21 5:57 Zheyu Ma 2021-10-21 8:37 ` Sergey Shtylyov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Zheyu Ma @ 2021-10-21 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: damien.lemoal; +Cc: linux-ide, linux-kernel, Zheyu Ma mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> --- drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) default: dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); - return 1; + return -ENODEV; } hpriv->hp_flags = hp_flags; -- 2.17.6 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function 2021-10-21 5:57 [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function Zheyu Ma @ 2021-10-21 8:37 ` Sergey Shtylyov 2021-10-21 10:38 ` Damien Le Moal 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sergey Shtylyov @ 2021-10-21 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zheyu Ma, damien.lemoal; +Cc: linux-ide, linux-kernel On 21.10.2021 8:57, Zheyu Ma wrote: > mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn > gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). > > During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 > for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. > > Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) > > default: > dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); > - return 1; > + return -ENODEV; Doesn't -EINVAL fit better here? [...] MBR, Sergey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function 2021-10-21 8:37 ` Sergey Shtylyov @ 2021-10-21 10:38 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-21 11:23 ` Zheyu Ma 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Damien Le Moal @ 2021-10-21 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sergey Shtylyov, Zheyu Ma; +Cc: linux-ide, linux-kernel On 2021/10/21 17:37, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > On 21.10.2021 8:57, Zheyu Ma wrote: > >> mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn >> gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). >> >> During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 >> for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >> index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >> @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) >> >> default: >> dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); >> - return 1; >> + return -ENODEV; > > Doesn't -EINVAL fit better here? If the error message is correct and this can only happen if there is a bug somewhere, I do not think the error code really matters much. The dev_err() should probably be changed to dev_alert() or even dev_crit() for this case. > > [...] > > MBR, Sergey > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function 2021-10-21 10:38 ` Damien Le Moal @ 2021-10-21 11:23 ` Zheyu Ma 2021-10-22 1:40 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-22 1:41 ` Damien Le Moal 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Zheyu Ma @ 2021-10-21 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Damien Le Moal; +Cc: Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:38 PM Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote: > > On 2021/10/21 17:37, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > > On 21.10.2021 8:57, Zheyu Ma wrote: > > > >> mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn > >> gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). > >> > >> During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 > >> for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > >> index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > >> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > >> @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) > >> > >> default: > >> dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); > >> - return 1; > >> + return -ENODEV; > > > > Doesn't -EINVAL fit better here? > > If the error message is correct and this can only happen if there is a bug > somewhere, I do not think the error code really matters much. The dev_err() > should probably be changed to dev_alert() or even dev_crit() for this case. > I don't think so, the error code does matter. If mv_chip_id() returns 1 which eventually causes the probe function to return 1, then the kernel will assume that the driver and the hardware match successfully (even if that is not the case), which will cause the following error if modprobe is called to remove the driver. [ 21.944486] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000001b: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI [ 21.945317] KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x00000000000000d8-0x00000000000000df] [ 21.954442] Call Trace: [ 21.954624] ? scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 [ 21.954923] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7e/0x110 [ 21.955240] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60 [ 21.955634] ? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x60/0x60 [ 21.956027] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x60 [ 21.956395] ? async_synchronize_cookie_domain+0x35f/0x4a0 [ 21.956802] ? async_synchronize_full_domain+0x20/0x20 [ 21.957179] ? lock_release+0x63f/0x8f0 [ 21.957468] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x30 [ 21.957761] scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 [ 21.958054] ata_host_detach+0x75d/0x830 [ 21.958349] ata_pci_remove_one+0x3b/0x40 [ 21.958649] pci_device_remove+0xa9/0x250 [ 21.958949] ? pci_device_probe+0x7d0/0x7d0 [ 21.959261] device_release_driver_internal+0x4f7/0x7a0 [ 21.959647] driver_detach+0x1e8/0x2c0 [ 21.959929] bus_remove_driver+0x134/0x290 [ 21.960234] ? sysfs_remove_groups+0x97/0xb0 [ 21.960552] driver_unregister+0x77/0xa0 [ 21.960859] pci_unregister_driver+0x2c/0x1c0 [ 21.961178] cleanup_module+0x15/0x28 [sata_mv] This is not the case if the correct error code is returned. > > > > [...] > > > > MBR, Sergey > > > > > -- > Damien Le Moal > Western Digital Research Regards, Zheyu Ma ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function 2021-10-21 11:23 ` Zheyu Ma @ 2021-10-22 1:40 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-22 1:41 ` Damien Le Moal 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Damien Le Moal @ 2021-10-22 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zheyu Ma; +Cc: Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide, Linux Kernel Mailing List On 2021/10/21 20:23, Zheyu Ma wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:38 PM Damien Le Moal > <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote: >> >> On 2021/10/21 17:37, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: >>> On 21.10.2021 8:57, Zheyu Ma wrote: >>> >>>> mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn >>>> gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). >>>> >>>> During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 >>>> for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >>>> index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >>>> @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) >>>> >>>> default: >>>> dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); >>>> - return 1; >>>> + return -ENODEV; >>> >>> Doesn't -EINVAL fit better here? >> >> If the error message is correct and this can only happen if there is a bug >> somewhere, I do not think the error code really matters much. The dev_err() >> should probably be changed to dev_alert() or even dev_crit() for this case. >> > > I don't think so, the error code does matter. If mv_chip_id() returns > 1 which eventually causes the probe function to return 1, then the > kernel will assume that the driver and the hardware match successfully > (even if that is not the case), which will cause the following error > if modprobe is called to remove the driver. What I meant is that -EINVAL or -ENODEV or any other proper error code do not really matter much since this error seems to happen only if there is something really wrong with the setup. "return 1" as it was definitely seems wrong. Given that the problem triggers with an invalid board_idx, -EINVAL seems more appropriate. But I would also change that message to dev_crit() or dev_alert() since this is a bug rather than a recoverable runtime error. Can you resend the patch with these changes ? > > [ 21.944486] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical > address 0xdffffc000000001b: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI > [ 21.945317] KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range > [0x00000000000000d8-0x00000000000000df] > [ 21.954442] Call Trace: > [ 21.954624] ? scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 > [ 21.954923] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7e/0x110 > [ 21.955240] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60 > [ 21.955634] ? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x60/0x60 > [ 21.956027] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x60 > [ 21.956395] ? async_synchronize_cookie_domain+0x35f/0x4a0 > [ 21.956802] ? async_synchronize_full_domain+0x20/0x20 > [ 21.957179] ? lock_release+0x63f/0x8f0 > [ 21.957468] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x30 > [ 21.957761] scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 > [ 21.958054] ata_host_detach+0x75d/0x830 > [ 21.958349] ata_pci_remove_one+0x3b/0x40 > [ 21.958649] pci_device_remove+0xa9/0x250 > [ 21.958949] ? pci_device_probe+0x7d0/0x7d0 > [ 21.959261] device_release_driver_internal+0x4f7/0x7a0 > [ 21.959647] driver_detach+0x1e8/0x2c0 > [ 21.959929] bus_remove_driver+0x134/0x290 > [ 21.960234] ? sysfs_remove_groups+0x97/0xb0 > [ 21.960552] driver_unregister+0x77/0xa0 > [ 21.960859] pci_unregister_driver+0x2c/0x1c0 > [ 21.961178] cleanup_module+0x15/0x28 [sata_mv] > > This is not the case if the correct error code is returned. > >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> MBR, Sergey >>> >> >> >> -- >> Damien Le Moal >> Western Digital Research > > Regards, > Zheyu Ma > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function 2021-10-21 11:23 ` Zheyu Ma 2021-10-22 1:40 ` Damien Le Moal @ 2021-10-22 1:41 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-22 9:18 ` Zheyu Ma 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Damien Le Moal @ 2021-10-22 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zheyu Ma; +Cc: Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide, Linux Kernel Mailing List On 2021/10/21 20:23, Zheyu Ma wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:38 PM Damien Le Moal > <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote: >> >> On 2021/10/21 17:37, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: >>> On 21.10.2021 8:57, Zheyu Ma wrote: >>> >>>> mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn >>>> gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). >>>> >>>> During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 >>>> for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >>>> index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c >>>> @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) >>>> >>>> default: >>>> dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); >>>> - return 1; >>>> + return -ENODEV; >>> >>> Doesn't -EINVAL fit better here? >> >> If the error message is correct and this can only happen if there is a bug >> somewhere, I do not think the error code really matters much. The dev_err() >> should probably be changed to dev_alert() or even dev_crit() for this case. >> > > I don't think so, the error code does matter. If mv_chip_id() returns > 1 which eventually causes the probe function to return 1, then the > kernel will assume that the driver and the hardware match successfully > (even if that is not the case), which will cause the following error > if modprobe is called to remove the driver. > > [ 21.944486] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical > address 0xdffffc000000001b: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI > [ 21.945317] KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range > [0x00000000000000d8-0x00000000000000df] > [ 21.954442] Call Trace: > [ 21.954624] ? scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 > [ 21.954923] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7e/0x110 > [ 21.955240] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60 > [ 21.955634] ? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x60/0x60 > [ 21.956027] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x60 > [ 21.956395] ? async_synchronize_cookie_domain+0x35f/0x4a0 > [ 21.956802] ? async_synchronize_full_domain+0x20/0x20 > [ 21.957179] ? lock_release+0x63f/0x8f0 > [ 21.957468] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x30 > [ 21.957761] scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 > [ 21.958054] ata_host_detach+0x75d/0x830 > [ 21.958349] ata_pci_remove_one+0x3b/0x40 > [ 21.958649] pci_device_remove+0xa9/0x250 > [ 21.958949] ? pci_device_probe+0x7d0/0x7d0 > [ 21.959261] device_release_driver_internal+0x4f7/0x7a0 > [ 21.959647] driver_detach+0x1e8/0x2c0 > [ 21.959929] bus_remove_driver+0x134/0x290 > [ 21.960234] ? sysfs_remove_groups+0x97/0xb0 > [ 21.960552] driver_unregister+0x77/0xa0 > [ 21.960859] pci_unregister_driver+0x2c/0x1c0 > [ 21.961178] cleanup_module+0x15/0x28 [sata_mv] How do you trigger this ? A bad device tree or something like that ? > > This is not the case if the correct error code is returned. > >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> MBR, Sergey >>> >> >> >> -- >> Damien Le Moal >> Western Digital Research > > Regards, > Zheyu Ma > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function 2021-10-22 1:41 ` Damien Le Moal @ 2021-10-22 9:18 ` Zheyu Ma 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Zheyu Ma @ 2021-10-22 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Damien Le Moal; +Cc: Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:41 AM Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote: > > On 2021/10/21 20:23, Zheyu Ma wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:38 PM Damien Le Moal > > <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 2021/10/21 17:37, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > >>> On 21.10.2021 8:57, Zheyu Ma wrote: > >>> > >>>> mv_init_host() propagates the value returned by mv_chip_id() which in turn > >>>> gets propagated by mv_pci_init_one() and hits local_pci_probe(). > >>>> > >>>> During the process of driver probing, the probe function should return < 0 > >>>> for failure, otherwise, the kernel will treat value > 0 as success. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@gmail.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/ata/sata_mv.c | 2 +- > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > >>>> index 9d86203e1e7a..7461fe078dd1 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c > >>>> @@ -3897,7 +3897,7 @@ static int mv_chip_id(struct ata_host *host, unsigned int board_idx) > >>>> > >>>> default: > >>>> dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: invalid board index %u\n", board_idx); > >>>> - return 1; > >>>> + return -ENODEV; > >>> > >>> Doesn't -EINVAL fit better here? > >> > >> If the error message is correct and this can only happen if there is a bug > >> somewhere, I do not think the error code really matters much. The dev_err() > >> should probably be changed to dev_alert() or even dev_crit() for this case. > >> > > > > I don't think so, the error code does matter. If mv_chip_id() returns > > 1 which eventually causes the probe function to return 1, then the > > kernel will assume that the driver and the hardware match successfully > > (even if that is not the case), which will cause the following error > > if modprobe is called to remove the driver. > > > > [ 21.944486] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical > > address 0xdffffc000000001b: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI > > [ 21.945317] KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range > > [0x00000000000000d8-0x00000000000000df] > > [ 21.954442] Call Trace: > > [ 21.954624] ? scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 > > [ 21.954923] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7e/0x110 > > [ 21.955240] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60 > > [ 21.955634] ? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x60/0x60 > > [ 21.956027] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x60 > > [ 21.956395] ? async_synchronize_cookie_domain+0x35f/0x4a0 > > [ 21.956802] ? async_synchronize_full_domain+0x20/0x20 > > [ 21.957179] ? lock_release+0x63f/0x8f0 > > [ 21.957468] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x30 > > [ 21.957761] scsi_remove_host+0x32/0x660 > > [ 21.958054] ata_host_detach+0x75d/0x830 > > [ 21.958349] ata_pci_remove_one+0x3b/0x40 > > [ 21.958649] pci_device_remove+0xa9/0x250 > > [ 21.958949] ? pci_device_probe+0x7d0/0x7d0 > > [ 21.959261] device_release_driver_internal+0x4f7/0x7a0 > > [ 21.959647] driver_detach+0x1e8/0x2c0 > > [ 21.959929] bus_remove_driver+0x134/0x290 > > [ 21.960234] ? sysfs_remove_groups+0x97/0xb0 > > [ 21.960552] driver_unregister+0x77/0xa0 > > [ 21.960859] pci_unregister_driver+0x2c/0x1c0 > > [ 21.961178] cleanup_module+0x15/0x28 [sata_mv] > > How do you trigger this ? A bad device tree or something like that ? Pretty much, I was testing on qemu and used fault injection to force the my_chip_id() to fail, even though this rarely happens. Regards, Zheyu Ma ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-22 9:18 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-10-21 5:57 [PATCH] ata: sata_mv: Fix the return value of the probe function Zheyu Ma 2021-10-21 8:37 ` Sergey Shtylyov 2021-10-21 10:38 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-21 11:23 ` Zheyu Ma 2021-10-22 1:40 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-22 1:41 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-10-22 9:18 ` Zheyu Ma
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox