On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:32:34AM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 02/07/2024 14:43, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi Tomi, > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:53:40PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > On 26/06/2024 18:07, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:55:39PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > > > On 26/06/2024 11:49, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:07:48PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > > > > > From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a bridge driver uses devm_mipi_dsi_device_register_full() or > > > > > > > devm_mipi_dsi_attach(), the resource management is moved to devres, > > > > > > > which releases the resource automatically when the bridge driver is > > > > > > > unbound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, if the DSI host goes away first, the host unregistration code > > > > > > > will automatically detach and unregister any DSI peripherals, without > > > > > > > notifying the devres about it. So when the bridge driver later is > > > > > > > unbound, the resources are released a second time, leading to crash. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's super surprising. mipi_dsi_device_unregister calls > > > > > > device_unregister, which calls device_del, which in turn calls > > > > > > devres_release_all. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, right. > > > > > > > > > > > If that doesn't work like that, then it's what needs to be fixed, and > > > > > > not worked around in the MIPI-DSI bus. > > > > > > > > > > Well, something causes a crash for both the device register/unregister case > > > > > and the attach/detach case, and the call stacks and debug prints showed a > > > > > double unregister/detach... > > > > > > > > > > I need to dig up the board and check again why the devres_release_all() in > > > > > device_del() doesn't solve this. But I can probably only get back to this in > > > > > August, so it's perhaps best to ignore this patch for now. > > > > > > > > > > However, the attach/detach case is still valid? I see no devres calls in the > > > > > detach paths. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by the attach/detach case. Do you expect > > > > device resources allocated in attach to be freed when detach run? > > > > > > Ah, never mind, the devres_release_all() would of course deal with that too. > > > > > > However, I just realized/remembered why it crashes. > > > > > > devm_mipi_dsi_device_register_full() and devm_mipi_dsi_attach() are given a > > > device which is used for the devres. This device is probably always the > > > bridge device. So when the bridge device goes away, so do those resources. > > > > > > The mipi_dsi_device_unregister() call deals with a DSI device, which was > > > created in devm_mipi_dsi_device_register_full(). Unregistering that DSI > > > device, which does happen when the DSI host is removed, does not affect the > > > devres of the bridge. > > > > > > So, unloading the DSI host driver causes mipi_dsi_device_unregister() and > > > mipi_dsi_detach() to be called (as part of mipi_dsi_host_unregister()), and > > > unloading the bridge driver causes them to be called again via devres. > > > > Sorry, that's one of the things I don't quite get. Both functions are > > exclusively(?) called from I2C bridges, so the device passed there > > should be a i2c_client instance, and thus the MIPI-DSI host going away > > will not remove those i2c devices, only the MIPI-DSI ones, right? > > Yes. > > > So if we remove the host, the MIPI-DSI device will be detached and > > removed through the path you were explaing with the i2c client lingering > > around. And if we remove the I2C device, then devm will kick in and will > > detach and remove the MIPI-DSI device. > > Right. > > > Or is it the other way around? That if you remove the host, the device > > is properly detached and removed, but there's still the devm actions > > lingering around in the i2c device with pointers to the mipi_dsi_device > > that was first created, but since destroyed? > > > > And thus, if the i2c device ever goes away, we get a use-after-free? > > Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here... Aren't you describing > the same thing in both of these cases? > > In any case, to expand the description a bit, module unloading is quite > fragile. I do get a crash if I first unload the i2c bridge module, and only > then go and unload the other ones in the DRM pipeline. But I think module > unloading will very easily crash, whatever the DRM drivers being used are, > so it's not related to this particular issue. > > In my view, the unload sequence that should be supported (for development > purposes, not for production) is to start the unload from the display > controller module, which tears down the DRM pipeline, and going from there > towards the panels/connectors. > > Of course, it would be very nice if the module unloading worked perfectly, > but afaics fixing all that's related to module unloading would be a > multi-year project... So, I just want to keep the sequence I described above > working, which allows using modules while doing driver development. FTR, I'm all for supporting module unloading. The discussion above was about what is broken exactly, so we can come up with a good solution. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
