From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: Biju <biju.das.au@gmail.com>
Cc: wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com, vkoul@kernel.org,
neil.armstrong@linaro.org, olteanv@gmail.com,
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] phy: renesas: phy-rcar-gen3-usb2: Fix devm action registration for disabled VBUS regulator
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 15:01:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260707150144.925AD1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260707143646.245177-8-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [Medium] `regulator_is_enabled()` returns a negative error code on failure, which incorrectly evaluates to true and causes an unbalanced disable WARN_ON.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] If the regulator was initially enabled in hardware AND explicitly enabled by the driver, only one disable action is registered, leading to a resource leak and WARN_ON.
- [High] If `regulator_enable()` fails, the function returns early without registering a disable action, leaking the implicit `enable_count` reference if the regulator was already enabled.
- [High] Missing cancellation of the pending workqueue task (`channel->work`) during device removal leads to a Use-After-Free.
--
--- Patch [7]: [PATCH v3 7/9] phy: renesas: phy-rcar-gen3-usb2: Fix devm action registration for disabled VBUS regulator ---
commit 30054990ee806fb8d79768ae79587b9acfe0f6a6
Author: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
phy: renesas: phy-rcar-gen3-usb2: Fix devm action registration for disabled VBUS regulator
This commit updates the VBUS regulator registration to always add a devm
disable action based on the actual enabled state, rather than only when
an explicit enable was requested. This ensures the regulator's enable_count
is correctly decremented during device removal even if it was left enabled
by the bootloader.
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen3-usb2.c b/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen3-usb2.c
> index d06fb52ed5f1b..ef38c3b365d42 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen3-usb2.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen3-usb2.c
> @@ -905,15 +905,17 @@ static int rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_vbus_regulator_get_exclusive_enable(struct rcar_ge
> if (IS_ERR(channel->vbus))
> return PTR_ERR(channel->vbus);
>
> - if (!enable)
> - return 0;
> + if (enable) {
> + ret = regulator_enable(channel->vbus);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this early return leak the implicit
enable_count reference if the regulator was already enabled?
If devm_regulator_get_exclusive() initializes enable_count to 1 (because the
hardware was already enabled), and this regulator_enable() call fails, we
return early and bypass registering the devm disable action. When the probe
fails and devres cleans up, regulator_put() will be called with
enable_count == 1, which triggers a WARN_ON(regulator->enable_count) and
leaks the underlying rdev->use_count.
> + }
>
> - ret = regulator_enable(channel->vbus);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + if (regulator_is_enabled(channel->vbus))
> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_vbus_disable_action,
> + channel->vbus);
[Severity: Medium]
Does regulator_is_enabled() return a negative error code on failure, and
will that be incorrectly evaluated as true here?
If a hardware or I2C error occurs, regulator_is_enabled() can return a
negative value. This condition would evaluate as true, queueing the
rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_vbus_disable_action even if the regulator is actually
disabled or its enable_count is 0.
On device removal, calling regulator_disable() with an enable_count of 0
triggers a WARN in the regulator core.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this logic lead to a resource leak if
the regulator was initially enabled in hardware and explicitly enabled by the
driver?
If the bootloader leaves the regulator enabled,
devm_regulator_get_exclusive() initializes enable_count to 1. If the driver
also explicitly requests enable = true, regulator_enable() increments
enable_count to 2.
However, this logic only registers a single disable action. During unbind,
the action decrements enable_count to 1, and devm_regulator_release() calls
regulator_put() which triggers a WARN_ON and destroys the consumer struct
without fully decrementing the underlying rdev->use_count.
> - return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_vbus_disable_action,
> - channel->vbus);
> + return 0;
> }
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this device removal sequence miss
canceling the pending workqueue task?
drivers/phy/renesas/phy-rcar-gen3-usb2.c:rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_remove() {
struct rcar_gen3_chan *channel = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
if (channel->is_otg_channel)
device_remove_file(&pdev->dev, &dev_attr_role);
}
The driver schedules channel->work from its IRQ handler. If the driver is
unbound while an IRQ is being processed, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_remove()
executes but does not call cancel_work_sync(&channel->work).
As devres cleans up, it frees the channel structure. If the workqueue
executes after channel is freed, it will dereference freed memory leading
to a use-after-free.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260707143646.245177-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com?part=7
--
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-07 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-07 14:36 [PATCH v3 0/9] Add RZ/G3L USB2.0 host support Biju
2026-07-07 14:36 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: phy: renesas,usb2-phy: Document RZ/G3L PHY bindings Biju
2026-07-07 14:36 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] phy: renesas: phy-rcar-gen3-usb2: Add RZ/G3L support Biju
2026-07-07 14:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-07 14:36 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] phy: renesas: phy-rcar-gen3-usb2: Fix devm action registration for disabled VBUS regulator Biju
2026-07-07 15:01 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260707150144.925AD1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=biju.das.au@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
/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