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

Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-01-20T07:03:29Z

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().