Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:47:11 +0100 (CET)
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To:     Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <1665542284.336646.1611820031174.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
In-Reply-To: <a6cb6eb10bbb48989d3a9e087951e50e@intel.com>
References: <20210127200319.662842-1-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <9732911.325628.1611780400338.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <c8d0f22c5fdf443cb8dda1f996b148d9@intel.com> <1776363776.325713.1611782270873.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <a6cb6eb10bbb48989d3a9e087951e50e@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: use refcount to prevent corruption
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Thread-Topic: use refcount to prevent corruption
Thread-Index: AQHW9OeD00Da249Jw0qJn6+VIZAeUao7z7AAgAAh5BBxoBSOfPxzntFAEGBJdu8=
Precedence: bulk

Tomas,

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> >> Can you please explain a little more what devices are involved?
>> >> Does it implement _get_device() and _put_device()?
>> > No this is not connected to those handlers of the underlying device
>> > and those won't help.
>> > I have a spi device provided by MFD framework so it can go away anytime.
>> 
>> Can it go away physically or just in software?
> Software, but since this is mfd it's basically hotplug. The kernel is crashing
> when I simulate hardware failure.
>> 
>> Usually the pattern is that you make sure in the device driver that nobody can
>> orphan the MTD while it is in use.
>> e.g. drivers/mtd/ubi/gluebi.c does so. In _get_device() it grabs a reference on
>> the underlying UBI volume to make sure it cannot go away while the MTD (on
>> top of UBI) is in use.
> 
> I can try that if it helps, because we are simulating possible lower level
> crash.
> In an case I believe that the proper refcouting is much more robust solution,
> than the current one.
> I'd appreciate if someone can review the actual implementation.

This happens right now, I try to understand why exactly the current way is not
good in enough. :-)

Your approach makes sure that the MTD itself does not go away while it has users but
how does this help in the case where the underlying MFD just vanishes?
The MTD can be in use and the MFD can go away while e.g. mtd_read() or such
takes place.

Thanks,
//richard