On Thu 26 Mar 07:01 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 3/26/20 12:42 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue 24 Mar 13:18 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
> >
> >> The current name field used in the remoteproc structure is simply
> >> a pointer to a name field supplied during the rproc_alloc() call.
> >> The pointer passed in by remoteproc drivers during registration is
> >> typically a dev_name pointer, but it is possible that the pointer
> >> will no longer remain valid if the devices themselves were created
> >> at runtime like in the case of of_platform_populate(), and were
> >> deleted upon any failures within the respective remoteproc driver
> >> probe function.
> >>
> >> So, allocate and maintain a local copy for this name field to
> >> keep it agnostic of the logic used in the remoteproc drivers.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 9 ++++++++-
> >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 2 +-
> >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index aca6d022901a..6e0b91fa6f11 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1989,6 +1989,7 @@ static void rproc_type_release(struct device *dev)
> >>
> >> kfree(rproc->firmware);
> >> kfree(rproc->ops);
> >> + kfree(rproc->name);
> >> kfree(rproc);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -2061,7 +2062,13 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> >> }
> >>
> >> rproc->firmware = p;
> >> - rproc->name = name;
> >> + rproc->name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Let's use kstrdup_const() instead here (and kfree_const() instead of
> > kfree()), so that the cases where we are passed a constant we won't
> > create a duplicate on the heap.
> >
> > And the "name" in struct rproc can remain const.
>
> Agreed, that's better functions to use for this.
>
> >
> >> + if (!rproc->name) {
> >> + kfree(p);
> >> + kfree(rproc->ops);
> >> + kfree(rproc);
> >> + return NULL;
> >
> > Perhaps we can rearrange the hunks here slightly and get to a point
> > where we can rely on the release function earlier?
>
> Not sure I understand. I don't see any release function, all failure
> paths in rproc_alloc() directly unwind the previous operations. You mean
> move this to before the alloc for rproc structure, something similar to
> what we are doing with firmware?
>
Look at the failure for ida_simple_get(), there we're past the setup of
rproc->dev.type, so the rproc_type->release function will be invoked as
we call put_device().
So if you move the initialization of rproc->dev up right after the
allocation of rproc we should be able to rely on that to clean up all
these for us.
Regards,
Bjorn
> regards
> Suman
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> >
> >> + }
> >> rproc->priv = &rproc[1];
> >> rproc->auto_boot = true;
> >> rproc->elf_class = ELFCLASS32;
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> index ddce7a7775d1..77788a4bb94e 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment {
> >> struct rproc {
> >> struct list_head node;
> >> struct iommu_domain *domain;
> >> - const char *name;
> >> + char *name;
> >> char *firmware;
> >> void *priv;
> >> struct rproc_ops *ops;
> >> --
> >> 2.23.0
> >>
>
