Hi Loic, Mani, Hemant,
On 2021-02-09 10:17 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
Hi Bhaumik,
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 18:27, Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2021-02-09 08:06 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 16:55, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/9/2021 8:53 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
>> > mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt functionthat takes care of unitializing channel
>> > resources, including unmapping coherent MHI areas, can be called
>> > from different path in case of controller unregistering/removal:
>> > - From a client driver remove callback, via mhi_unprepare_channel
>> > - From mhi_driver_remove that unitialize all channels
>> >
>> > mhi_driver_remove()
>> > |-> driver->remove()
>> > | |-> mhi_unprepare_channel()
>> > | |-> mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt()
>> > |...
>> > |-> mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt()
>> >
>> > This leads to double dma freeing...
>> >
>> > Fix that by preventing deinit for already uninitialized channel.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Reported-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>>
>> Seems like this should have a Fixes: tag, no?
>
> Right, thanks, i'll add it in V2 once I get feedback.
Hi Loic, Mani,
I saw this same issue a while back but could not collect the logs for
it.
I had already pushed a patch to fix this differently [1] which was
recently reviewed by Hemant.
Although there wasn't a purposeful fixes tag for it. I think the
culprit
for this issue is [2]:
As it allows the unprepare to go through on remove(), which was
traditionally not allowed and
ends up uncovering this issue as it fixes another.
Channel updates [3] address that and provide a bunch of other
improvements. Please consider them.
Yes, patch [2] is the culprit. I would recommend merging this tiny fix
so that it can be easily grab for 5.11 or backported, and keep your
series (rebased on top), for mhi-next (going to review/test it btw).
Regards,
Loic
If priority is to get this fix in ASAP, your suggestion is OK. I just
see some
typo fixes and a title update to "bus: mhi: core: Fix double dma free()
call"
or something as review comments for your patch.
Another option is that I can send my patch [1] separately and remove it
from my
"channel updates" patch series, if that helps.
I'd like to see what Mani and Hemant on what they prefer. Please advise.
Thanks,
Bhaumik
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/2/4/1161
---
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
