On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:34:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
/*
* Its possible that we get into this path
* When populate_msi_sysfs fails, which means the entries
* were not registered with sysfs. In that case don't
- * unregister them.
+ * unregister them, and just free. Otherwise the
+ * kobject->release will take care of freeing the entry via
+ * msi_kobj_release().
*/
if (entry->kobj.parent) {
kobject_del(&entry->kobj);
kobject_put(&entry->kobj);
+ } else {
+ kfree(entry);
}
-
- list_del(&entry->list);
- kfree(entry);
So this code sequence still makes me very unhappy.
Why does not just a simple unconditional
kobject_del(&entry->kobj);
kobject_put(&entry->kobj);
work for the "not registered with sysfs" case? And if the sysfs code
really gets confused, why not
if (entry->kobj.parent)
kobject_del(&entry->kobj);
kobject_put(&entry->kobj);
It was fixed this way in 424eb39 ("PCI: msi: fix imbalanced refcount of msi
irq sysfs objects"). kobject_put() still failed in case it wasn't
registered with sysfs earlier. populate_msi_sysfs() creates an kobject for
each entry in msi_list, and we have no idea (on fallback) up to which entry
was it already registered, on which it failed and which entries are still
not kobject_init_and_add()ed.
(btw, looking at the sysfs code, this looks *very* suspicious in
sysfs_remove_dir():
struct sysfs_dirent *sd = kobj->sd;
spin_lock(&sysfs_assoc_lock);
kobj->sd = NULL;
spin_unlock(&sysfs_assoc_lock);
and I would suggest that "sd = kobj->sd" should be done under the
lock, because otherwise the lock is kind of pointless..)
Greg?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
