Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-49809-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240126061153.2883199-1-vamshigajjela@google.com>
 <ZbNq9q5mM6kRq7c3@hovoldconsulting.com> <CAMTSyjqOj64z3-mDm1pdQ5bi9ZM3j_cr7iSdCtvo40RyJrh38Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZbdUW3GYVu6zF9QQ@hovoldconsulting.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZbdUW3GYVu6zF9QQ@hovoldconsulting.com>
From: VAMSHI GAJJELA <vamshigajjela@google.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:29:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAMTSyjp3MJvzQ5wnsssWOHqDiB5YD==TzOXNNjJQ9sL-_-Mfkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 RESEND] spmi: hisi-spmi-controller: Fix kernel panic on rmmod
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, 
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>, Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, manugautam@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:01=E2=80=AFPM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:13:22AM +0530, VAMSHI GAJJELA wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 1:48=E2=80=AFPM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:41:53AM +0530, Vamshi Gajjela wrote:
> > > > Ensure consistency in spmi_controller pointers between
> > > > spmi_controller_remove/put and driver spmi_del_controller functions=
.
> > > > The former requires a pointer to struct spmi_controller, while the
> > > > latter passes a pointer of struct spmi_controller_dev, leading to a
> > > > "Null pointer exception".
> > > >
> > > > 'nr' member of struct spmi_controller, which serves as an identifie=
r
> > > > for the controller/bus. This value is assigned a dynamic ID in
> > > > spmi_controller_alloc, and overriding it from the driver results in=
 an
> > > > ida_free error "ida_free called for id=3Dxx which is not allocated"=
.
> > >
> > > No Fixes tag?
>
> > There isn't a bug, I will remove word "Fix"
>
> Both of the issues you point out above sounds like bugs that deserve a
> Fixes tag.
ACK
>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vamshi Gajjela <vamshigajjela@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/spmi/hisi-spmi-controller.c | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/spmi/hisi-spmi-controller.c b/drivers/spmi/his=
i-spmi-controller.c
> > > > index 9cbd473487cb..af51ffe24072 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/spmi/hisi-spmi-controller.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/spmi/hisi-spmi-controller.c
> > > > @@ -303,7 +303,6 @@ static int spmi_controller_probe(struct platfor=
m_device *pdev)
> > > >
> > > >       spin_lock_init(&spmi_controller->lock);
> > > >
> > > > -     ctrl->nr =3D spmi_controller->channel;
>
> > This remains applicable, however, it could lead to a failure in the
> > spmi_ctrl_release, I
> > will refactor the patch to address this.
> > also "spmi_del_controller" is removed from 6.7.2
>
> No, this has not changed in 6.7.2, it has been removed from 6.8-rc1.
ACK
>
> > > >       ctrl->dev.parent =3D pdev->dev.parent;
> > > >       ctrl->dev.of_node =3D of_node_get(pdev->dev.of_node);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -326,7 +325,8 @@ static int spmi_controller_probe(struct platfor=
m_device *pdev)
> > > >
> > > >  static void spmi_del_controller(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >
> > > This function does not exist in mainline so presumably this is some b=
ug
> > > you've introduced in your downstream driver that you're trying to fix=
.
> > >
> > > So this patch looks all bogus.
>
> > spmi_del_controller is present until in 6.7.2, I have made this patch
> > in last week of Dec,
> > I should have checked before resending, apologies.
>
> The bug you found was apparently accidentally fixed by commit
> 490d88ef548d ("spmi: hisi-spmi-controller: Use
> devm_spmi_controller_add()") in 6.8-rc1 but I don't see any record of it
> having been backported yet.
>
> As it depends on new helper function that will likely not happen either.
>
> Perhaps you can split your patch in two separate fixes and ask the stable
> team to backport the driver-data one.
Sure, I will split this into two as suggested, Thanks.
>
> > > >  {
> > > > -     struct spmi_controller *ctrl =3D platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > +     struct spmi_controller_dev *spmi_controller =3D platform_get_=
drvdata(pdev);
> > > > +     struct spmi_controller *ctrl =3D spmi_controller->controller;
> > > >
> > > >       spmi_controller_remove(ctrl);
> > > >       spmi_controller_put(ctrl);
>
> Johan