Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] of: change overlay apply input data from unflattened to FDT

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>]

Hi Alan,

On 04/25/18 11:19, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/25/18 07:59, Alan Tull wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>
>>>> On 04/23/18 15:38, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>>
>>>>> + Alan Tull for fpga perspective
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/22/18 03:30, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-04-11 07:42, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-04-05 23:12, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/18 12:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-04-05 20:59, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/18 15:35, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-03-04 01:17, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Move duplicating and unflattening of an overlay flattened devicetree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (FDT) into the overlay application code.  To accomplish this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of_overlay_apply() is replaced by of_overlay_fdt_apply().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The copy of the FDT (aka "duplicate FDT") now belongs to devicetree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code, which is thus responsible for freeing the duplicate FDT.  The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> caller of of_overlay_fdt_apply() remains responsible for freeing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> original FDT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unflattened devicetree now belongs to devicetree code, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus responsible for freeing the unflattened devicetree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These ownership changes prevent early freeing of the duplicated FDT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the unflattened devicetree, which could result in use after free
>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of_overlay_fdt_apply() is a private function for the anticipated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlay loader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We are using of_fdt_unflatten_tree + of_overlay_apply in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> (out-of-tree) Jailhouse loader driver in order to register a virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>> device during hypervisor activation with Linux. The DT overlay is
>>>>>>>>>>>> created from a a template but modified prior to application to account
>>>>>>>>>>>> for runtime-specific parameters. See [1] for the current implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm now wondering how to model that scenario best with the new API.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that the loader lost ownership of the unflattened tree but the
>>>>>>>>>>>> modification API exist only for the that DT state, I'm not yet seeing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> clear solution. Should we apply the template in disabled form (status =
>>>>>>>>>>>> "disabled"), modify it, and then activate it while it is already applied?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the pointer to the driver - that makes it much easier to
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the use case and consider solutions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you can make the changes directly on the FDT instead of on the
>>>>>>>>>>> expanded devicetree, then you could move to the new API.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are there some examples/references on how to edit FDTs in-place in the
>>>>>>>>>> kernel? I'd like to avoid writing the n-th FDT parser/generator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know of any existing in-kernel edits of the FDT (but they might
>>>>>>>>> exist).  The functions to access an FDT are in libfdt, which is in
>>>>>>>>> scripts/dtc/libfdt/.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's please not go down that route of doing FDT modifications. There
>>>>>>>> is little reason to other than for early boot changes. And it is much
>>>>>>>> easier to work on unflattened trees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just briefly looked into libfdt, and it would have meant building it
>>>>>>> into the module as there are no library functions exported by the kernel
>>>>>>> either. Another reason to drop that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's apparently working now is the pattern I initially suggested:
>>>>>>> Register template with status = "disabled" as overlay, then prepare and
>>>>>>> apply changeset that contains all needed modifications and sets the
>>>>>>> status to "ok". I might be leaking additional resources, but to find
>>>>>>> that out, I will now finally have to resolve clean unbinding of the
>>>>>>> generic PCI host controller [1] first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static void free_overlay_changeset(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>      [...]
>>>>>>      /*
>>>>>>       * TODO
>>>>>>       *
>>>>>>       * would like to: kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree);
>>>>>>       * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data
>>>>>>       *
>>>>>>       * would like to: kfree(ovcs->fdt);
>>>>>>       * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data
>>>>>>       */
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      kfree(ovcs);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's this? I have kmemleak now jumping at me over this. Who is suppose
>>>>>> to plug these leaks? The caller of of_overlay_fdt_apply has no pointers
>>>>>> to those objects. I would say that's a regression of the new API.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem already existed but it was hidden.  We have never been able to
>>>>> kfree() these object because we do not know if there are any pointers into
>>>>> these objects.  The new API makes the problem visible to kmemleak.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason that we do not know if there are any pointers into these objects
>>>>> is that devicetree access APIs return pointers into the devicetree internal
>>>>> data structures (that is, into the overlay unflattened devicetree).  If we
>>>>> want to be able to do the kfree()s, we could change the devicetree access
>>>>> APIs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason that pointers into the overlay flattened tree (ovcs->fdt) are
>>>>> also exposed is that the overlay unflattened devicetree property values
>>>>> are pointers into the overlay fdt.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** This paragraph becomes academic (and not needed) if the fix in the next
>>>>> paragraph can be implemented. **
>>>>> I _think_ that the fdt issue __for overlays__ can be fixed somewhat easily.
>>>>> (I would want to read through the code again to make sure I'm not missing
>>>>> any issues.)  If the of_fdt_unflatten_tree() called by of_overlay_fdt_apply()
>>>>> was modified so that property values were copied into newly allocated memory
>>>>> and the live tree property pointers were set to the copy instead of to
>>>>> the value in the fdt, then I _think_ the fdt could be freed in
>>>>> of_overlay_fdt_apply() after calling of_overlay_apply().  The code that
>>>>> frees a devicetree would also have to be aware of this change -- I'm not
>>>>> sure if that leads to ugly complications or if it is easy.  The other
>>>>> question to consider is whether to make the same change to
>>>>> of_fdt_unflatten_tree() when it is called in early boot to unflatten
>>>>> the base devicetree.  Doing so would increase the memory usage of the
>>>>> live tree (we would not be able to free the base fdt after unflattening
>>>>> it because we make the fdt visible in /sys/firmware/fdt -- though
>>>>> _maybe_ that could be conditioned on CONFIG_KEXEC).
>>>>
>>>> Question added below this paragraph.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But all of the complexity of that fix is _only_ because of_overlay_apply()
>>>>> and of_overlay_remove() call overlay_notify(), passing in the overlay
>>>>> unflattened devicetree (which has pointers into the overlay fdt). Pointers
>>>>> into the overlay unflattened devicetree are then passed to the notifiers.
>>>>> (Again, I may be missing some other place that the overlay unflattened
>>>>> devicetree is made visible to other code -- a more thorough reading of
>>>>> the code is needed.) If the notifiers could be modified to accept the
>>>>> changeset list instead of of pointers to the fragments in the overlay
>>>>> unflattened devicetree then there would be no possibility of the notifiers
>>>>> keeping a pointer into the overlay fdt. I do not know if this is a
>>>>> practical change for the notifiers -- there are no callers of
>>>>> of_overlay_notifier_register() in the mainline kernel source. My
>>>>> recollection is that the overlay notifiers were added for the fpga
>>>>> subsystem.
>>>>
>>>> Can the fpga notifiers be changed to have the changeset as an input
>>>> instead of having the overlay devicetree fragment and target as an
>>>> input?
>>>
>>> I'll look into it.  Just to be clear, are you suggesting passing
>>> struct overlay_changeset instead in the notifier?
>>
>> Ah, poor phrasing on my part.  I meant a "struct of_changeset", as is
>> passed into __of_changeset_apply_entries(), which is called from
>> of_overlay_apply().  This means that the call to overlay_notify()
>> would have to move down a few lines to just after calling
>> build_changeset().
> 
> Ah yes, I thought it was looking too easy. :)  I had it working with
> notify data passing the struct overlay_changeset, I was about to send
> you the patch.
> 
> The FPGA code really wants the data as fragments, so it will know
> first of all what the target is.  Passing of_changeset would mean that
> the code receiving the notification would be essentially be tasked
> reassembling the changeset into fragments. Perhaps it could be done,
> but it could easily be broken by changes to overlay.c and it would be
> ugly.   That breaks the exact thing that I added overlay notifications
> for.  I really need to see for each fragment what the target is, and
> all the properties together.

approach I proposed here is not solving the underlying problem, but just
moving it to another place.  So I am not going to pursue this approach.

-Frank

> 
>>
>>
>>> struct overlay_changeset and struct fragment would have to be moved to a header.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The changeset lists nodes and properties to be added, but does not
>>>> expose any pointers to the overlay fdt or the overlay unflattened
>>>> devicetree.  This guarantees no leakage of pointers into the overlay
>>>> fdt or the overlay unflattened devicetree.  The changeset contains
>>>> pointers to copies of data, but those copies are never freed (and
>>>> thus they are yet another existing memory leak).
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>>
>>>>> Why is overlay_notify() the only issue related to unknown users having
>>>>> pointers into the overlay fdt?  The answer is that the overlay code
>>>>> does not directly expose the overlay unflattened devicetree (and thus
>>>>> indirectly the overlay fdt) to the live devicetree -- when the
>>>>> overlay code creates the overlay changeset, it copies from the
>>>>> overlay unflattened devicetree and overlay fdt and only exposes
>>>>> pointers to the copies.
>>>>>
>>>>> And hopefully the issues with the overlay unflattened devicetree can
>>>>> be resolved in the same way as for the overlay fdt.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>