Re: [PATCH 2/2] media: V4L2: support asynchronous subdevice registration

[Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com>]

On 11/01/2012 12:09 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Guennadi,
>
> On 10/29/2012 08:52 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Typically this function will be called during bridge driver probing. It
>>>>> + * installs bus notifiers to handle asynchronously probing subdevice drivers.
>>>>> + * Once the bridge driver probing completes, subdevice drivers, waiting in
>>>>> + * EPROBE_DEFER state are re-probed, at which point they get their platform
>>>>> + * data, which allows them to complete probing.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int v4l2_async_group_probe(struct v4l2_async_group *group)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd, *tmp;
>>>>> +	bool i2c_used = false, platform_used = false;
>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* This group is inactive so far - no notifiers yet */
>>>>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(asd, tmp,&group->group, list) {
>>>>> +		if (asd->sdpd.subdev) {
>>>>> +			/* Simulate a BIND event */
>>>>> +			if (group->bind_cb)
>>>>> +				group->bind_cb(group, asd);
>>>>> +
>>>
>>> Still we can't be sure at this moment asd->sdpd.subdev's driver is
>>> valid and not unloaded, can we ?
>>>
>>> In the case when a sub-device driver is probed after the host driver
>>> (a caller of this function) I assume doing
>>>
>>> 	asd->sdpd.subdev = i2c_get_clientdata(to_i2c_client(dev));
>>> 	...
>>> 	ret = v4l2_device_register_subdev(v4l2_dev, asd->sdpd.subdev);
>>>
>>> is safe, because it is done in the i2c bus notifier callback itself,
>>> i.e. under device_lock(dev).
>>>
>>> But for these already probed sub-devices, how do we prevent races from
>>> subdev module unloading ? By not setting CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD?... ;)
>>
>> Right, I also think there's a race there. I have a solution for it - in
>> the current mainline version of sh_mobile_ceu_camera.c look at the code
>> around the line
>>
>> 		err = bus_register_notifier(&platform_bus_type,&wait.notifier);
>>
>> sh_mobile_ceu_probe(). I think, that guarantees, that we either lock the
>> module _safely_ in memory per try_module_get(dev->driver->owner) or get
>> notified, that the module is unavailable. It looks ugly, but I don't have
>> a better solution ATM. We could do the same here too.
>
> IMHO even "ugly" solution is better than completely ignoring the problem.
>
> I have some doubts whether your method eliminates the race issue. Firstly,
> shouldn't the bus_notify callback [1] be active on BUS_NOTIFY_UNBIND_DRIVER,
> rather than US_NOTIFY_UNBOUND_DRIVER ? Upon US_NOTIFY_UNBOUND_DRIVER
> dev->driver is already NULL and still it is being referenced in a call to
> try_module_get() (line 2224, [1]).
>
> Secondly, what guarantees that before bus_register_notifier() call [1],
> we are not already after blocking_notifier_call_chain() (line 504, [2])
> which means we miss the notification and the sub-device driver is going
> away together with its module under our feet ?

Hmm, please ignore that one, of course in this case dev->driver is NULL 
and branch after this line

		if (!csi2_pdev->dev.driver) {
is entered.

> [1] http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.6/drivers/media/video/sh_mobile_ceu_camera.c#L2055
> [2] http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.6/drivers/base/dd.c#L478
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sylwester