On Sat, 2022-06-11 at 15:59 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > +Cc Mark Brown for a query on ordering in device tree based SPI > setup. > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:08:41 +0200 > Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 16:56 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:48 AM Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 'of_node_put()' can potentially release the memory pointed to > > > > by > > > > 'iiospec.np' which would leave us with an invalid pointer (and > > > > we > > > > would > > > > still pass it in 'of_xlate()'). As such, we can only release > > > > the > > > > node > > > > after we are done with it. > > > > > > The question you should answer in the commit message is the > > > following: > > > "Can an OF node, attached to a struct device, be gone before the > > > device itself?" If it so, then patch is good, otherwise there is > > > no > > > point in this patch in the first place. > > > > > > > Yeah, I might be wrong but from a quick look... yes, I think the > > node > > can be gone before the device. Take a look on the spi or i2c > > of_notify > > handling and you can see that the nodes are get/put on the > > add/remove > > notifcation. Meaning that the node lifespan is not really attached > > to > > the device lifespan. If it was, I would expect to see of_node_put() > > on > > the device release() function... > > I had a look at spi_of_notify() and indeed via > spi_unregister_device() > the node is put just before device_del() so I agree that at first > glance > it seems like there may be a race there against the useage here. > Mark (+CC) out of interest why are the node gets before the > device_add() > in spi_add_device() called from of_register_spi_device() but the > matching > node puts before the device_del() in spi_unregister_device()? > Seems like inconsistent ordering... > > Which is not to say we shouldn't fix the IIO usage as this patch > does! > Just to add something that came to my attention. In the IIO case, it does not even matter if the parent device has the OF node lifetime "linked" to it (as it actually happens for platform devices). The reason is that iio_dev only has a weak reference to it's parent and (I think) the parent can actually go away while the iio_dev is still around (eg: someone has an open fd to the iio_dev cdev). > > > > Again, I might be wrong and I admit I was not sure about including > > this > > patch because it's a very unlikely scenario even though I think, in > > theory, a possible one. > > The patch is currently valid even if it's not a 'real' bug. > Given we are doing a put on that device_node, it makes sense for that > to occur after the local use has finished - we shouldn't be relying > on > what happens to be the case for lifetimes today. > > Now, I did wonder if any drivers actually use it in their xlate > callbacks. > One does for an error print, so this is potentially real (if very > unlikely!) > > This isn't a 'fix' I'd expect to rush in, or necessarily backport to > stable > but I think it's a valid fix. > Should I drop the fixes tag? - Nuno Sá
