Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
IronPort-SDR: xU+VbEKldOlnKkVcx+JEOjZ8T1FbRj0/omO4mNtzlZtQp/YRaF/LcJ3tnnXk1KxJBJobvPnPlf
 XtIqI4w46vVt9D/aI4Mzs/gWDv06tnNeKGgnzXvEhhg8VHDAKJQQBF1C1F15W/p6hj2SNkLxFU
 s+EHl3OpFZk6JUhd4HEnj4Q7Oh32YvnwIvJTciD7nZccvzP/R+iK4rR/ULk4IcfpJS5qcCngtc
 GwFxFIR+X8aVDp8F3v3/T/z+j+KWJOcll7Oyk+MaGmsqf0pzn22zw3YDcYoDrco4JMPEL6q16s
 muM=
IronPort-SDR: zofhbpvw1FMAY96LhnFDLug/QL2Adiu8gPR23GZo0AuxoVZyJ+N0MTl/cBxR+Uv1PCiC0/fyMr
 yntkhrPMBKU9RqrliWOP7r4cyicBeCFGnSLGaUMxmlr3tPEKPCgmoLSdffP1VY3Rs8EVY+MC8O
 +hfkpm5YVQWE+ZOt9psgiPYtQpF4BnVz1E9B3WIbB/3ohxR9m7yhaxs9baUFQl5aw9ei7470Ix
 l4rKoMfCM1BRm5CnTHb+UTuhAwLxYgQAFtvN+g9GBDCdD/1TOPl/3/rKX72C3tj0ktetdM1EGI
 2x0=
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 54/55] Input: atmel_mxt_ts: Implement synchronization
 during various operation
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>, <nick@shmanahar.org>,
        <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>, <jikos@kernel.org>,
        <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>, <bsz@semihalf.com>
CC:     <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <erosca@de.adit-jv.com>, <Andrew_Gabbasov@mentor.com>
References: <20200331105051.58896-1-jiada_wang@mentor.com>
 <20200331105051.58896-55-jiada_wang@mentor.com>
 <c53637ef-8e5d-3243-7236-5da360021f21@gmail.com>
 <b06c7915-562f-ec68-766a-2118cfe57a0f@mentor.com>
 <b9a8865c-7754-16f7-8f66-9cd70dc42d3c@gmail.com>
 <12b913cd-cc0e-73b3-7ae5-8589ad5e968b@gmail.com>
From:   "Wang, Jiada" <jiada_wang@mentor.com>
Message-ID: <7f5435d1-27b0-c337-224c-c78acd989d9e@mentor.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:07:33 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12b913cd-cc0e-73b3-7ae5-8589ad5e968b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dmitrij

On 2020/04/02 22:44, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 02.04.2020 16:24, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>> 02.04.2020 14:50, Wang, Jiada пишет:
>>> Hi Dmitry
>>>
>>> On 2020/04/02 1:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 31.03.2020 13:50, Jiada Wang пишет:
>>>>> From: Sanjeev Chugh <sanjeev_chugh@mentor.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There could be scope of race conditions when sysfs is being handled
>>>>> and at the same time, device removal is occurring. For example,
>>>>> we don't want the device removal to begin if the Atmel device
>>>>> cfg update is going on or firmware update is going on. In such
>>>>> cases, wait for device update to be completed before the removal
>>>>> continues.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Thread                                          Thread 2:
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> mxt_update_fw_store()                           mxt_remove()
>>>>> mutex_lock(&data->lock)                         ...
>>>>> mxt_initialize()                                //Tries to acquire lock
>>>>>     request_firmware_nowait()                     mutex_lock(&data->lock)
>>>>> ...                                             ==>waits for lock()
>>>>> ...                                             .
>>>>> ...                                             .
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock)                       .
>>>>>                                                   //Gets lock and
>>>>> proceeds
>>>>>                                                  
>>>>> mxt_free_input_device();
>>>>>                                                   ...
>>>>>                                                  
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock)
>>>>>                                                   //Frees atmel driver
>>>>> data
>>>>>                                                   kfree(data)
>>>>>
>>>>> If the request_firmware_nowait() completes after the driver removal,
>>>>> and callback is triggered. But kernel crashes since the module is
>>>>> already removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit adds state machine to serialize such scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> Won't it be easier to bump driver's module use-count by __module_get()
>>>> while firmware is updating? Or remove sysfs during of mxt_remove()? >
>>>
>>> thanks for your inspiration, I will replace state machine with module
>>> use-count.
>>
>> I'm actually now thinking that the suggestion about the module-count
>> wasn't very correct because this won't really help in regards to
>> mxt_update_fw_store() / mxt_remove() racing.
>>
>> I see that mxt_remove() already invokes the mxt_sysfs_remove(), which
>> should block until mxt_update_fw_store() is completed, shouldn't it?
>>
>> I guess the kfree(data) isn't the real cause of the problem and
>> something like this should help:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> b/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> index b2edf51e1595..4e66106feeb9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> @@ -4254,6 +4254,7 @@ static void mxt_sysfs_remove(struct mxt_data *data)
>>   	struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
>>
>>   	sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &mxt_attr_group);
>> +	sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &mxt_fw_attr_group);
>>   }
>>
>>   static void mxt_reset_slots(struct mxt_data *data)
>> @@ -4649,31 +4650,19 @@ static int mxt_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>   {
>>   	struct mxt_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>
>> -	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> -	if (data->e_state == MXT_STATE_UPDATING_CONFIG_ASYNC ||
>> -	    data->e_state == MXT_STATE_UPDATING_CONFIG) {
>> -		data->e_state = MXT_STATE_GOING_AWAY;
>> -		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> -		mxt_wait_for_completion(data, &data->update_cfg_completion,
>> -					MXT_CONFIG_TIMEOUT);
>> -	} else {
>> -		data->e_state = MXT_STATE_GOING_AWAY;
>> -		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> -	}
>> +	mxt_sysfs_remove(data);
>>
>> -	disable_irq(data->irq);
>> -	sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &mxt_fw_attr_group);
>>   	if (data->reset_gpio) {
>>   		sysfs_remove_link(&client->dev.kobj, "reset");
>>   		gpiod_unexport(data->reset_gpio);
>>   	}
>> +
>>   	mxt_debug_msg_remove(data);
>> -	mxt_sysfs_remove(data);
>>   	mxt_free_input_device(data);
>>   	mxt_free_object_table(data);
>>
>> 	if (debug_state)
>> 		cancel_delayed_work_sync(&data->watchdog_work);
>> +	disable_irq(data->irq);
>>
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>
> 
> I'm also wondering why dev_attr_update_fw needs a separate
> attribute_group, couldn't it be moved into mxt_attrs[]
Separate sysfs into different groups are done by commit
"Input: atmel_mxt_ts - rework sysfs init/remove"
I think the main purpose,
is to remove other sysfs entries when firmware is being updated.

Thanks,
Jiada