Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753833AbbLVQJ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:09:27 -0500 Received: from mail.savoirfairelinux.com ([208.88.110.44]:58813 "EHLO mail.savoirfairelinux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751859AbbLVQJX (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:09:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:09:08 -0500 From: Damien Riegel To: Guenter Roeck Cc: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , Pratyush Anand , Hans de Goede , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] watchdog: Separate and maintain variables based on variable lifetime Message-ID: <20151222160907.GC6164@localhost> Mail-Followup-To: Damien Riegel , Guenter Roeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , Pratyush Anand , Hans de Goede , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1450645503-16661-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1450645503-16661-3-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20151221172815.GC12696@localhost> <5678A322.2010109@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5678A322.2010109@roeck-us.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4430 Lines: 107 On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:10:58PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 12/21/2015 09:28 AM, Damien Riegel wrote: > >On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 01:05:00PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>All variables required by the watchdog core to manage a watchdog are > >>currently stored in struct watchdog_device. The lifetime of those > >>variables is determined by the watchdog driver. However, the lifetime > >>of variables used by the watchdog core differs from the lifetime of > >>struct watchdog_device. To remedy this situation, watchdog drivers > >>can implement ref and unref callbacks, to be used by the watchdog > >>core to lock struct watchdog_device in memory. > >> > >>While this solves the immediate problem, it depends on watchdog drivers > >>to actually implement the ref/unref callbacks. This is error prone, > >>often not implemented in the first place, or not implemented correctly. > >> > >>To solve the problem without requiring driver support, split the variables > >>in struct watchdog_device into two data structures - one for variables > >>associated with the watchdog driver, one for variables associated with > >>the watchdog core. With this approach, the watchdog core can keep track > >>of its variable lifetime and no longer depends on ref/unref callbacks > >>in the driver. As a side effect, some of the variables originally in > >>struct watchdog_driver are now private to the watchdog core and no longer > >>visible in watchdog drivers. > >> > >>The 'ref' and 'unref' callbacks in struct watchdog_driver are no longer > >>used and marked as deprecated. > > > >Two comments below. It's great to see that unbinding a driver no longer > >triggers a kernel panic. > > > It should not have caused a panic to start with, but the ref/unref functions > for the most part were either not or wrongly implemented. Not really > surprising - it took me a while to understand the problem. I tested on a driver which did not implement ref/unref. When ping is called, it tries to dereference a freed 'struct watchdog_device' in watchdog_get_drvdata, leading to a panic. > > [ ... ] > > >> > >> /* > >>+ * struct _watchdog_device - watchdog core internal data > > > >Think it should be /**. Anyway, I find it confusing to have both > >_watchdog_device and watchdog_device, but I can't think of a better > >name right now. > > I renamed the data structure to watchdog_data and moved it into watchdog_dev.c > since it is only used there. No '**', though, because it is not a published > API, but just an internal data structure. > > I also renamed the matching variable name to 'wd_data' (from '_wdd'). Okay. Also, why didn't you use the explicit type for 'wdd_data' in 'struct watchdog_device' instead of a void*? > > >> > >> static void watchdog_cdev_unregister(struct watchdog_device *wdd) > >> { > >>- mutex_lock(&wdd->lock); > >>- set_bit(WDOG_UNREGISTERED, &wdd->status); > >>- mutex_unlock(&wdd->lock); > >>+ struct _watchdog_device *_wdd = wdd->wdd_data; > >> > >>- cdev_del(&wdd->cdev); > >>+ cdev_del(&_wdd->cdev); > >> if (wdd->id == 0) { > >> misc_deregister(&watchdog_miscdev); > >>- old_wdd = NULL; > >>+ _old_wdd = NULL; > >> } > >>+ > >>+ if (watchdog_active(wdd)) > >>+ pr_crit("watchdog%d: watchdog still running!\n", wdd->id); > > > >As it is now safe to unbind and rebind a driver, it means that a > >watchdog driver probe function can now be called with a running > >watchdog. Some drivers handle this situation, but I think that most of > >them expect the watchdog to be off at this point. > > > No semantics change, though, and no change in behavior. Drivers _should_ > handle that situation today. Sure, many don't, but that is a different issue. All right, that's what confused me. It was, and still will be, driver responsiblity to handle this situation. > > I'll address handling an already-running watchdog by the watchdog core until > the character device is opened in a separate patch set, but we'll have to have > this series accepted before I re-introduce that. Even with that, it will still > be the driver's responsibility to detect and report that/if a watchdog is > already running. > > Thanks, > Guenter > Thanks, Damien -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/