Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] PM / runtime: Use device links

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> spotted what looks like a bug in the device links runtime PM code:
>
> When resuming a device, __rpm_callback() calls rpm_get_suppliers(dev):
>
>> +                     retval = rpm_get_suppliers(dev);
>> +                     if (retval)
>> +                             goto fail;
>
>
> This will walk the list of suppliers and call pm_runtime_get_sync()
> for each of them:
>
>> +static int rpm_get_suppliers(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     struct device_link *link;
>> +
>> +     list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node) {
>> +             int retval;
> [...]
>> +             retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(link->supplier);
>> +             if (retval < 0) {
>> +                     pm_runtime_put_noidle(link->supplier);
>> +                     return retval;
>
>
> If pm_runtime_get_sync() failed, e.g. because runtime PM is disabled
> on a supplier, the function will put the reference of the failed
> supplier and return.
>
> Back in __rpm_callback() we jump to the fail mark, where we call
> rpm_put_suppliers().
>
>> + fail:
>> +                     rpm_put_suppliers(dev);
>> +
>> +                     device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>
>
> This walks the list of suppliers and releases a ref for each of them:
>
>> +static void rpm_put_suppliers(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     struct device_link *link;
>> +
>> +     list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node)
>> +             if (link->rpm_active &&
>> +                 READ_ONCE(link->status) != DL_STATE_SUPPLIER_UNBIND) {
>> +                     pm_runtime_put(link->supplier);
>> +                     link->rpm_active = false;
>> +             }
>> +}
>
>
> This looks wrong:  We've already put a ref on the failed supplier, so here
> we're putting another one.

Are we?  I would think link->rpm_active would be false for the failed
one, wouldn't it?

>  And if there are further suppliers in the list
> following the failed one, we'll decrement their refcount even though we've
> never incremented it.

I'm not following you here, sorry.

Thanks,
Rafael