在 2025/2/8 18:40, Yunhui Cui 写道:
During platform_device_register, wrongly using struct device
pci_dev as platform_data caused a kmemdup copy of pci_dev. Worse
still, accessing the duplicated device leads to list corruption as its
mutex content (e.g., list, magic) remains the same as the original.
Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/perf/dwc_pcie_pmu.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/perf/dwc_pcie_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/dwc_pcie_pmu.c
index 19fa2ba8dd67..4f6599e32bba 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/dwc_pcie_pmu.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/dwc_pcie_pmu.c
@@ -565,9 +565,7 @@ static int dwc_pcie_register_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev)
u32 sbdf;
sbdf = (pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus) << 16) | PCI_DEVID(pdev->bus->number, pdev->devfn);
- plat_dev = platform_device_register_data(NULL, "dwc_pcie_pmu", sbdf,
- pdev, sizeof(*pdev));
-
+ plat_dev = platform_device_register_simple("platform_dwc_pcie", sbdf, NULL, 0);
if (IS_ERR(plat_dev))
return PTR_ERR(plat_dev);
@@ -616,18 +614,26 @@ static struct notifier_block dwc_pcie_pmu_nb = {
static int dwc_pcie_pmu_probe(struct platform_device *plat_dev)
{
- struct pci_dev *pdev = plat_dev->dev.platform_data;
+ struct pci_dev *pdev;
struct dwc_pcie_pmu *pcie_pmu;
char *name;
u32 sbdf;
u16 vsec;
int ret;
+ sbdf = plat_dev->id;
+ pdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(sbdf >> 16, PCI_BUS_NUM(sbdf & 0xffff),
+ sbdf & 0xff);
+ if (!pdev) {
+ pr_err("No pdev found for the sbdf 0x%x\n", sbdf);
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
vsec = dwc_pcie_des_cap(pdev);
if (!vsec)
return -ENODEV;
pci_dev_put(pdev) should move ahead to aovid return here.
- sbdf = plat_dev->id;
+ pci_dev_put(pdev);
name = devm_kasprintf(&plat_dev->dev, GFP_KERNEL, "dwc_rootport_%x", sbdf);
if (!name)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -642,7 +648,7 @@ static int dwc_pcie_pmu_probe(struct platform_device *plat_dev)
pcie_pmu->on_cpu = -1;
pcie_pmu->pmu = (struct pmu){
.name = name,
- .parent = &pdev->dev,
+ .parent = &plat_dev->dev,
.module = THIS_MODULE,
.attr_groups = dwc_pcie_attr_groups,
.capabilities = PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE,
@@ -729,7 +735,7 @@ static int dwc_pcie_pmu_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu, struct hlist_node *cpuhp_n
static struct platform_driver dwc_pcie_pmu_driver = {
.probe = dwc_pcie_pmu_probe,
- .driver = {.name = "dwc_pcie_pmu",},
+ .driver = {.name = "platform_dwc_pcie",},
Aha, it is very difficult to come up with a name that satisfies everyone. The
original name uses the '_pmu' suffix to follow the unwritten convention of
other PMU drivers.
Personally, I think the original name is more appropriate, but I'll leave the
decision to @Will.
Thanks.
Best Regards.
Shuai
