linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Alban <albeu@free.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
	Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@ettus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:36:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170303143658.5d89a329@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170303133629.3aac2945@tock>

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:36:29 +0100
Alban <albeu@free.fr> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:18:03 +0100
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu,  2 Mar 2017 20:50:22 +0100
> > Alban <albeu@free.fr> wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> >  
> > > +static void mtd_nvmem_add(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct device *dev = &mtd->dev;
> > > +	struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(dev);
> > > +	struct nvmem_config config = {};
> > > +	struct mtd_nvmem *mtd_nvmem;
> > > +
> > > +	/* OF devices have to provide the nvmem node */
> > > +	if (np && !of_property_read_bool(np, "nvmem-provider"))
> > > +		return;    
> > 
> > Might have to be adapted according to the DT binding if we decide to
> > add an extra subnode, but then, I'm not sure the nvmem cells creation
> > will work correctly, because the framework expect nvmem cells to be
> > direct children of the nvmem device, which will no longer be the case
> > if you add an intermediate node between the MTD device node and the
> > nvmem cell nodes.  
> 
> Yes to support such a binding we would have to fix of_nvmem_cell_get(),
> but that should be quiet simple to have it support both the new and old
> binding.
> 
> >
> > [snip]
> >  
> > > +static void mtd_nvmem_remove(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mtd_nvmem *mtd_nvmem;
> > > +	bool found = false;
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&mtd_nvmem_list_lock);
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(mtd_nvmem, &mtd_nvmem_list, list) {
> > > +		if (mtd_nvmem->mtd == mtd) {
> > > +			list_del(&mtd_nvmem->list);
> > > +			found = true;
> > > +			break;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&mtd_nvmem_list_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	if (found) {
> > > +		if (nvmem_unregister(mtd_nvmem->nvmem))
> > > +			dev_err(&mtd->dev,
> > > +				"Failed to unregister NVMEM device\n");    
> > 
> > Ouch! You failed to unregister the NVMEM device but you have no way to
> > stop MTD dev removal, which means you have a potential use-after-free
> > bug. Not sure this can happen in real life, but I don't like that.  
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of this problem. Sorry, I forgot to mention this in the
> cover letter.

No problem.

> 
> > Maybe we should let notifiers return an error if they want to cancel
> > the removal, or maybe this is a good reason to put the nvmem pointer
> > directly in mtd_info and call mtd_nvmem_add/remove() directly from
> > add/del_mtd_device() and allow them to return an error.
> > 
> > Not that, if you go for this solution, you'll also get rid of the
> > global mtd_nvmem_list list and the associated lock.  
> 
> IMHO the MTD users framework has to be re-worked to be useful. First
> both the add and remove callbacks should have return values. Users where
> the add failed shouldn't be removed later and users where the remove
> fails should block the removal of the MTD.

As said in my previous reply, it's not just about returning an error. I
had a closer look at the code, and it seems that using
__get_mtd_device() properly should prevent the problem we are talking
about (call __get_mtd_device() after your nvmem_register() and call
__put_mtd_device() only if nvmem_unregister() succeed).

> 
> Furthermore only passing the MTD device to the add/remove callback
> force the users to keep their own list, which is annoying to say the
> least. A simple fix would be to have the add callback return a pointer
> that would be passed back to the remove callback. Trivial to implement
> and the MTD user wouldn't have to keep any list. I will look into this
> in the next days.

That's a different problem, and I'm not sure I like the idea of
changing the ->add() prototype into

	void *(*add)(struct mtd_info *);

If we want to do that, I'd rather see an API extension allowing one to
attach/detach/query/update user data to an MTD device.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-03 13:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-02 19:50 [PATCH 0/3] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API Alban
2017-03-02 19:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] doc: bindings: Add bindings documentation for mtd nvmem Alban
2017-03-02 20:22   ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 12:17     ` Alban
2017-03-03 12:37       ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 13:12         ` Alban
2017-03-03 11:27   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2017-03-03 12:19     ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 12:22     ` Alban
2017-03-02 19:50 ` [PATCH 2/3] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API Alban
2017-03-02 21:18   ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 12:36     ` Alban
2017-03-03 13:36       ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2017-03-03 13:57         ` Alban
2017-03-03 14:11           ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 22:21             ` Richard Weinberger
2017-03-06 17:21               ` Alban
2017-03-06 19:03                 ` Richard Weinberger
2017-03-06 21:02                   ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 11:23   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2017-03-03 12:34     ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03 13:30       ` Alban
2017-03-03 14:03         ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-02 19:50 ` [PATCH 3/3] nvmem: core: Allow allocating several anonymous nvmem devices Alban
2017-03-02 20:03   ` Boris Brezillon
2017-03-03  1:50     ` Moritz Fischer
2017-03-03 10:08   ` Srinivas Kandagatla

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=20170303143658.5d89a329@bbrezillon \
    --to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=albeu@free.fr \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=moritz.fischer@ettus.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).