On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:03:26PM -0700, Siddharth Gupta wrote: > > On 6/14/2021 9:56 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 07:21:08PM -0700, Siddharth Gupta wrote: > > > When cdev_add is called after device_add has been called there is no > > > way for the userspace to know about the addition of a cdev as cdev_add > > > itself doesn't trigger a uevent notification, or for the kernel to > > > know about the change to devt. This results in two problems: > > > - mknod is never called for the cdev and hence no cdev appears on > > > devtmpfs. > > > - sysfs links to the new cdev are not established. > > > > > > The cdev needs to be added and devt assigned before device_add() is > > > called in order for the relevant sysfs and devtmpfs entries to be > > > created and the uevent to be properly populated. > > So this means no one ever ran this code on a system that used devtmpfs? > > > > How was it ever tested? > My testing was done with toybox + Android's ueventd ramdisk. > As I mentioned in the discussion, the race became evident > recently. I will make sure to test all such changes without > systemd/ueventd in the future. It isn't an issue of systemd/ueventd, those do not control /dev on a normal system, that is what devtmpfs is for. And devtmpfs nodes are only created if you create a struct device somewhere with a proper major/minor, which you were not doing here, so you must have had a static /dev on your test systems, right? thanks, greg k-h
