2017-12-15 3:13 GMT+08:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:24:02PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
>> As mentioned at drivers/base/core.c:
>> /*
>> * NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function, even
>> * if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up the
>> * reference initialized in this function instead.
>> */
>> so we don't free vp_dev until vp_dev->vdev.dev.release be called.
>
> seeing as 5739411acbaa63a6c22c91e340fdcdbcc7d82a51 adding these
> annotations went to stable, should this go there too?
>
just let people know the detail reason of using put_device.
>> Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <zhangweiping@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> OK but this relies on users knowing that register_virtio_device
> calls device_register. I think we want to add a comment
> to register_virtio_device.
>
> Also the cleanup is uglified.
>
> I really think the right thing would be to change device_register making
> it safe to kfree. People have the right to expect register on failure to
> have no effect.
>
> That just might be too hard to implement though.
>
> For now, my suggestion - add a variable.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> index 1c4797e..91d20f7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> @@ -551,16 +551,17 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
>> pci_set_master(pci_dev);
>>
>> rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
>> - if (rc)
>> - goto err_register;
>> + if (rc) {
>> + if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
>> + virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
>> + else
>> + virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
>> + pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
>> + put_device(&vp_dev->vdev.dev);
>> + }
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + return rc;
>>
>> -err_register:
>> - if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
>> - virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
>> - else
>> - virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
>> err_probe:
>> pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
>> err_enable_device:
>> --
>> 2.9.4
>
> I'd prefer something like the below.
>
> --->
>
> virtio_pci: don't kfree device on register failure
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> index 1c4797e..995ab03 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static void virtio_pci_release_dev(struct device *_d)
> static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
> const struct pci_device_id *id)
> {
> - struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev;
> + struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev, *reg_dev = NULL;
> int rc;
>
> /* allocate our structure and fill it out */
> @@ -551,6 +551,8 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
> pci_set_master(pci_dev);
>
> rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
> + /* NOTE: device is considered registered even if register failed. */
> + reg_dev = vp_dev;
> if (rc)
> goto err_register;
>
> @@ -564,7 +566,10 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
> err_probe:
> pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> err_enable_device:
> - kfree(vp_dev);
> + if (reg_dev)
> + put_device(dev);
> + else
> + kfree(vp_dev);
> return rc;
> }
looks more cleaner and same coding style.
Need I send V3 or apply your patch directly ?
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
