On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 11:26:11AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 03:19:23PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > On 25/07/2024 14:28, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:32:34AM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > > On 02/07/2024 14:43, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > Hi Tomi, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:53:40PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > > > > On 26/06/2024 18:07, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:55:39PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > > > > > > On 26/06/2024 11:49, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:07:48PM GMT, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Tomi Valkeinen > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a bridge driver uses > > > > > > > > > > devm_mipi_dsi_device_register_full() or > > > > > > > > > > devm_mipi_dsi_attach(), the resource management is moved to > > > > > > > > > > devres, > > > > > > > > > > which releases the resource automatically when the bridge > > > > > > > > > > driver is > > > > > > > > > > unbound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, if the DSI host goes away first, the host > > > > > > > > > > unregistration code > > > > > > > > > > will automatically detach and unregister any DSI > > > > > > > > > > peripherals, without > > > > > > > > > > notifying the devres about it. So when the bridge driver > > > > > > > > > > later is > > > > > > > > > > unbound, the resources are released a second time, leading > > > > > > > > > > to crash. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's super surprising. mipi_dsi_device_unregister calls > > > > > > > > > device_unregister, which calls device_del, which in turn calls > > > > > > > > > devres_release_all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that doesn't work like that, then it's what needs to be > > > > > > > > > fixed, and > > > > > > > > > not worked around in the MIPI-DSI bus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, something causes a crash for both the device > > > > > > > > register/unregister case > > > > > > > > and the attach/detach case, and the call stacks and debug > > > > > > > > prints showed a > > > > > > > > double unregister/detach... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need to dig up the board and check again why the > > > > > > > > devres_release_all() in > > > > > > > > device_del() doesn't solve this. But I can probably only get > > > > > > > > back to this in > > > > > > > > August, so it's perhaps best to ignore this patch for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the attach/detach case is still valid? I see no devres > > > > > > > > calls in the > > > > > > > > detach paths. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by the attach/detach case. Do you > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > device resources allocated in attach to be freed when detach run? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, never mind, the devres_release_all() would of course deal with > > > > > > that too. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I just realized/remembered why it crashes. > > > > > > > > > > > > devm_mipi_dsi_device_register_full() and devm_mipi_dsi_attach() are > > > > > > given a > > > > > > device which is used for the devres. This device is probably always > > > > > > the > > > > > > bridge device. So when the bridge device goes away, so do those > > > > > > resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > The mipi_dsi_device_unregister() call deals with a DSI device, > > > > > > which was > > > > > > created in devm_mipi_dsi_device_register_full(). Unregistering that > > > > > > DSI > > > > > > device, which does happen when the DSI host is removed, does not > > > > > > affect the > > > > > > devres of the bridge. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, unloading the DSI host driver causes > > > > > > mipi_dsi_device_unregister() and > > > > > > mipi_dsi_detach() to be called (as part of > > > > > > mipi_dsi_host_unregister()), and > > > > > > unloading the bridge driver causes them to be called again via > > > > > > devres. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, that's one of the things I don't quite get. Both functions are > > > > > exclusively(?) called from I2C bridges, so the device passed there > > > > > should be a i2c_client instance, and thus the MIPI-DSI host going away > > > > > will not remove those i2c devices, only the MIPI-DSI ones, right? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > So if we remove the host, the MIPI-DSI device will be detached and > > > > > removed through the path you were explaing with the i2c client > > > > > lingering > > > > > around. And if we remove the I2C device, then devm will kick in and > > > > > will > > > > > detach and remove the MIPI-DSI device. > > > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > > > > Or is it the other way around? That if you remove the host, the device > > > > > is properly detached and removed, but there's still the devm actions > > > > > lingering around in the i2c device with pointers to the > > > > > mipi_dsi_device > > > > > that was first created, but since destroyed? > > > > > > > > > > And thus, if the i2c device ever goes away, we get a use-after-free? > > > > > > > > Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here... Aren't you > > > > describing > > > > the same thing in both of these cases? > > > > > > > > In any case, to expand the description a bit, module unloading is quite > > > > fragile. I do get a crash if I first unload the i2c bridge module, and > > > > only > > > > then go and unload the other ones in the DRM pipeline. But I think > > > > module > > > > unloading will very easily crash, whatever the DRM drivers being used > > > > are, > > > > so it's not related to this particular issue. > > > > > > > > In my view, the unload sequence that should be supported (for > > > > development > > > > purposes, not for production) is to start the unload from the display > > > > controller module, which tears down the DRM pipeline, and going from > > > > there > > > > towards the panels/connectors. > > > > > > > > Of course, it would be very nice if the module unloading worked > > > > perfectly, > > > > but afaics fixing all that's related to module unloading would be a > > > > multi-year project... So, I just want to keep the sequence I described > > > > above > > > > working, which allows using modules while doing driver development. > > > > > > FTR, I'm all for supporting module unloading. The discussion above was > > > about what is broken exactly, so we can come up with a good solution. > > > > Does that mean that you're ok with the patch, or that something should be > > improved? > > No, I meant that at the very least the commit log needs to be updated to > reflect what is actually going on, because at least my understanding of > it doesn't match what actually happens. > > We want a solution to the problem you're facing, but it's not clear to > me what the problem is exactly at this point, so it's hard to review a > solution.
So I haven't looked at the full thing, but I think the proper fix is to make both detach and unregister cope with being called multiple times. I think devm_ here is a red herring, the underlying issues is that we can unregister/detach from two sides: - when the host dsi goes away - when individual dsi devices on a given host go away So there needs to be book-keeping and locking to make sure no matter which order things disappear, we don't try to unregister/detach a dsi device twice. Now whether that device model is correct is maybe a different question, but I think it's entirely orthogonal issue too. Or maybe I'm just wrong ... Cheers, Sima -- Simona Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
