On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:36 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 12:42 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > While originally it was fine to format strings using "%pOF" while
> > holding devtree_lock, this now causes a deadlock. Lockdep reports:
> >
> > of_get_parent from of_fwnode_get_parent+0x18/0x24
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > of_fwnode_get_parent from fwnode_count_parents+0xc/0x28
> > fwnode_count_parents from fwnode_full_name_string+0x18/0xac
> > fwnode_full_name_string from device_node_string+0x1a0/0x404
> > device_node_string from pointer+0x3c0/0x534
> > pointer from vsnprintf+0x248/0x36c
> > vsnprintf from vprintk_store+0x130/0x3b4
> >
> > Fix this by moving the printing in __of_changeset_entry_apply() outside
> > the lock. As the only difference in the the multiple prints is the
> > action name, use the existing "action_names" to refactor the prints into
> > a single print.
> >
> > Fixes: a92eb7621b9fb2c2 ("lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators")
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v5 (v2 in this series):
> > - Move majority of refactoring to separate patch and minimize the fix
> > to just moving the print out of the locked section.
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/drivers/of/dynamic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>
> > @@ -648,20 +634,17 @@ static int __of_changeset_entry_apply(struct of_changeset_entry *ce)
> > }
> >
> > ret = __of_update_property(ce->np, ce->prop, &old_prop);
> > - if (ret) {
> > - pr_err("changeset: update_property failed @%pOF/%s\n",
> > - ce->np,
> > - ce->prop->name);
> > - break;
> > - }
> > break;
> > default:
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > }
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
> >
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_err("changeset: apply failed: cset<%p> %-15s %pOF:%s\n",
>
> Printing the cset pointer will (needlessly?) complicate the EXPECT_*()
> handling in the unit test.
That's added largely because the other prints which I rework later in
this series had them. Either printing the changeset ptr is useful or
it isn't. I think people running the unittest and the post-processor
can easily enough filter this out when looking at the results.
Honestly, even I probably run it less than once a cycle.
>
> > + ce, action_names[ce->action], ce->np, ce->prop->name);
>
> This should check ce->action to avoid an out-of-bounds access beyond
> the end of action_names[].
Indeed.
I think I'll add "invalid" to action_names names and then do something
like: "(ce->action < FOO) ? ce->action : 0".
Rob
