Re: [PATCH] i2c: drop ancient protection against sysfs refcounting issues

[Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>]

On 01/20/2015 08:12 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:05:20AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 01/20/2015 02:41 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:04:27PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:42AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:55:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>>>> index 39d25a8cb1ad..15cc5902cf89 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@
>>>>>>   #include <linux/of_device.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/clk/clk-conf.h>
>>>>>> -#include <linux/completion.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/hardirq.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/irqflags.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/rwsem.h>
>>>>>> @@ -1184,8 +1183,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(i2c_new_dummy);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   static void i2c_adapter_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>   {
>>>>>> -	struct i2c_adapter *adap = to_i2c_adapter(dev);
>>>>>> -	complete(&adap->dev_released);
>>>>>> +	/* empty, but the driver core insists we need a release function */
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it does, but I hate to see this in "real" code as something is
>>>>> probably wrong with it if it happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please move the rest of 'i2c_del_adapter' into the release function
>>>>> (what was after the wait_for_completion() call), and then all should be
>>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure about that?  Some drivers do this, eg,
>>>>
>>>>          i2c_del_adapter(&drv_data->adapter);
>>>>          free_irq(drv_data->irq, drv_data);
>>>>
>>>> where drv_data was allocated using devm_kzalloc(), and so will be
>>>> released when the ->remove callback (which calls the above
>>>> i2c_del_adapter()) returns... freeing the embedded device struct.
>>>
>>> But that will fail today if the memory is freed in i2c_del_adapter(), so
>>> there shouldn't be any change in logic here.
>>>
>>> Or am I missing something obvious?
>>
>> The memory is not freed in i2c_del_adapter().
>
> Right, and I'm not saying it should be, just move the existing logic
> into the release callback, and the code flow should be the same and we
> don't end up with an "empty" release callback.

But the code flow often is.

i2c_del_adapter(&drvdata->adap);
kfree(drvdata);

That wont work anymore if i2c_del_adapter() returns before the last reference 
has been dropped. This needs to be restructured so that the adapter memory can 
be freed by the release callback.