public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>, Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 21/23] gpio: protect the pointer to gpio_chip in gpio_device with SRCU
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:31:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZcDVNA6Id7Bmckt0@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240205093418.39755-22-brgl@bgdev.pl>

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 10:34:16AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> 
> Ensure we cannot crash if the GPIO device gets unregistered (and the
> chip pointer set to NULL) during any of the API calls.
> 
> To that end: wait for all users of gdev->chip to exit their read-only
> SRCU critical sections in gpiochip_remove().

> For brevity: add a guard class which can be instantiated at the top of
> every function requiring read-only access to the chip pointer and use it
> in all API calls taking a GPIO descriptor as argument. In places where
> we only deal with the GPIO device - use regular guard() helpers and
> rcu_dereference() for chip access. Do the same in API calls taking a
> const pointer to gpio_desc.

...

>  static ssize_t base_show(struct device *dev,
>  			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>  {
> -	const struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct gpio_chip *gc;
>  
> -	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", gdev->chip->base);
> +	guard(srcu)(&gdev->srcu);
> +
> +	gc = rcu_dereference(gdev->chip);
> +	if (!gc)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", gc->base);

Similar Q as below.

>  }

...

>  static ssize_t label_show(struct device *dev,
>  			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>  {
> -	const struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct gpio_chip *gc;
>  
> -	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", gdev->chip->label ?: "");
> +	guard(srcu)(&gdev->srcu);
> +
> +	gc = rcu_dereference(gdev->chip);
> +	if (!gc)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", gc->label ?: "");

Why do you need gc label here and not gdev? In other code you switched over (in
a patch before this in the series).

>  }

>  static ssize_t ngpio_show(struct device *dev,
>  			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>  {
> -	const struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct gpio_chip *gc;
>  
> -	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", gdev->chip->ngpio);
> +	guard(srcu)(&gdev->srcu);
> +
> +	gc = rcu_dereference(gdev->chip);
> +	if (!gc)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", gc->ngpio);

Ditto.

>  }

...

>  int gpiod_get_direction(struct gpio_desc *desc)
>  {
> -	struct gpio_chip *gc;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	unsigned int offset;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	gc = gpiod_to_chip(desc);
> +	if (!desc)
> +		/* Sane default is INPUT. */
> +		return 1;

Hmm... I can't imagine how this value may anyhow be used / useful.

> +	if (IS_ERR(desc))
> +		return -EINVAL;

With above said, can't we use one of VALIDATE_DESC*() macro here?

...

>  	list_for_each_entry_srcu(gdev, &gpio_devices, list,
>  				 srcu_read_lock_held(&gpio_devices_srcu)) {

> +	list_for_each_entry_srcu(gdev, &gpio_devices, list,
> +				 srcu_read_lock_held(&gpio_devices_srcu)) {

Seems like a candidate for

#define gpio_for_each_device(...) ...

...

>  	VALIDATE_DESC(desc);
>  
> -	gc = desc->gdev->chip;
> -	if (!gc->en_hw_timestamp) {
> +	CLASS(gpio_chip_guard, guard)(desc);
> +	if (!guard.gc)
> +		return -ENODEV;


Not sure if it would be good to have a respective VALIDATE_DESC_GUARDED()
or so. At least it may deduplicate a few cases.

...

> +	/* FIXME Cannot use gpio_chip_guard due to const desc. */

gpio_chip_guard()

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-05 12:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-05  9:33 [PATCH v2 00/23] gpio: rework locking and object life-time control Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:33 ` [PATCH v2 01/23] gpio: protect the list of GPIO devices with SRCU Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:33 ` [PATCH v2 02/23] gpio: of: assign and read the hog pointer atomically Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:33 ` [PATCH v2 03/23] gpio: remove unused logging helpers Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:33 ` [PATCH v2 04/23] gpio: provide and use gpiod_get_label() Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 05/23] gpio: don't set label from irq helpers Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 06/23] gpio: add SRCU infrastructure to struct gpio_desc Bartosz Golaszewski
     [not found]   ` <ZcDRuRCT9xE48cYi@smile.fi.intel.com>
2024-02-05 13:54     ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 13:57       ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05 14:04         ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 14:06           ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05 14:07             ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 07/23] gpio: protect the descriptor label with SRCU Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 08/23] gpio: sysfs: use gpio_device_find() to iterate over existing devices Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 12:18   ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05 13:19     ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 13:38       ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05 13:39         ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 13:47           ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05 13:50             ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 13:58               ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05 14:04                 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 09/23] gpio: remove gpio_lock Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 10/23] gpio: reinforce desc->flags handling Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 11/23] gpio: remove unneeded code from gpio_device_get_desc() Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 12/23] gpio: sysfs: extend the critical section for unregistering sysfs devices Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 13/23] gpio: sysfs: pass the GPIO device - not chip - to sysfs callbacks Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 14/23] gpio: cdev: replace gpiochip_get_desc() with gpio_device_get_desc() Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 15/23] gpio: cdev: don't access gdev->chip if it's not needed Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 16/23] gpio: don't dereference gdev->chip in gpiochip_setup_dev() Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 17/23] gpio: reduce the functionality of validate_desc() Bartosz Golaszewski
     [not found]   ` <ZcDS60dB39y-B6WR@smile.fi.intel.com>
2024-02-05 19:22     ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-06 12:30       ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 18/23] gpio: remove unnecessary checks from gpiod_to_chip() Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 19/23] gpio: add the can_sleep flag to struct gpio_device Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 20/23] gpio: add SRCU infrastructure " Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 21/23] gpio: protect the pointer to gpio_chip in gpio_device with SRCU Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 12:31   ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2024-02-05 13:30     ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 19:32     ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05 19:36     ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-06 12:24       ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-06 12:57         ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-06 13:13           ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-06 13:23             ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-06 13:43               ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 22/23] gpio: remove the RW semaphore from the GPIO device Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-02-05  9:34 ` [PATCH v2 23/23] gpio: mark unsafe gpio_chip manipulators as deprecated Bartosz Golaszewski

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=ZcDVNA6Id7Bmckt0@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org \
    --cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
    --cc=elder@linaro.org \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=warthog618@gmail.com \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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