On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:01:44AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:12:01AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Oddly enough, yes. But it doesn't explain why this code doesn't blow
> >> > > up every time it gets called, in its current form.
> >> >
> >> > Well, it does :-)
> >> >
> >> > dev_get_drvdata(_dev) -> NULL -> kfree(NULL)
> >> >
> >> > We're just leaking memory. I guess a patch like below would be best:
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c
> >> > index 3828c2ec8623..4dc04253da61 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c
> >> > @@ -3555,13 +3555,6 @@ static irqreturn_t net2280_irq(int irq, void *_dev)
> >> >
> >> > /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
> >> >
> >> > -static void gadget_release(struct device *_dev)
> >> > -{
> >> > - struct net2280 *dev = dev_get_drvdata(_dev);
> >> > -
> >> > - kfree(dev);
> >> > -}
> >> > -
> >> > /* tear down the binding between this driver and the pci device */
> >> >
> >> > static void net2280_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >> > @@ -3598,6 +3591,8 @@ static void net2280_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >> > device_remove_file(&pdev->dev, &dev_attr_registers);
> >> >
> >> > ep_info(dev, "unbind\n");
> >> > +
> >> > + kfree(dev);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > /* wrap this driver around the specified device, but
> >> > @@ -3775,8 +3770,7 @@ static int net2280_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> >> > if (retval)
> >> > goto done;
> >> >
> >> > - retval = usb_add_gadget_udc_release(&pdev->dev, &dev->gadget,
> >> > - gadget_release);
> >> > + retval = usb_add_gadget_udc(&pdev->dev, &dev->gadget);
> >> > if (retval)
> >> > goto done;
> >> > return 0;
> >>
> >> Maybe... But I can't shake the feeling that Greg KH would strongly
> >> disagree. Hasn't he said, many times in the past, that any dynamically
> >> allocated device structure _must_ have a real release routine?
> >> usb_udc_nop_release() doesn't qualify.
> >
> > Aw, I wanted to publically yell at someone like the kernel documentation
> > says I am allowed to do so if anyone does such a foolish thing :)
>
> heh, except that we're not dynamically allocating struct device at all
> :-)
Please don't say that, that's even worse :(
> Here's what we have for most UDCs (net2280.c included):
>
> struct my_udc {
> struct gadget gadget;
> [...]
> };
>
> probe()
> {
> struct my_udc *u;
>
> u = kzalloc(sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
> [...]
> return 0;
> }
>
> Now, if this kzalloc() would be replaced with devm_kzalloc() wouldn't
> this result on a functionally equivalent execution to the patch I
> proposed above?
>
> Iff we change struct gadget to contain a struct device *dev instead of a
> struct device dev, then sure, we will need to cope with proper
> ->release() implementations.
>
> As it is, it brings nothing to the table, IMO.
You always have to have a release function for a kobject, no matter
where it is, as it is being reference counted. To not do so, is a huge
indication of a problem in the design.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
