| Message ID | 20240829033511.1917015-1-11162571@vivo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 8a0ec8c2d736961ff556e9d331decda9048fe0f1 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] drivers: spi: Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return | expand |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:35:11 +0800, Yang Ruibin wrote: > Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to > decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). > > Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next Thanks! [1/1] drivers: spi: Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return commit: 8a0ec8c2d736961ff556e9d331decda9048fe0f1 All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted. You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed. If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced. Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail. Thanks, Mark
Hi Yang, On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: > Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to > decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). > > Signed-off-by: Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 8a0ec8c2d736961f ("spi: Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return") in spi/for-next. > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c > @@ -146,8 +146,10 @@ static int lpss_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) > c->num_chipselect = 1; > > ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 50000000); > - if (ret) > + if (ret) { > + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); dma_dev is still uninitialized at this point. > return ret; > + } > > dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn), 0)); dma_dev is initialized only here... > ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); ... and freed automatically by lpss_dma_put_device() in case of any later failures since commit 609d7ffdc42199a0 ("spi: pxa2xx-pci: Balance reference count for PCI DMA device") in v5.18. > @@ -222,8 +224,10 @@ static int mrfld_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) > } > > ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 25000000); > - if (ret) > + if (ret) { > + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); > return ret; > + } > > dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(21, 0)); > ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); Likewise. Hence this patch is not needed, and introduced two bugs. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On 30/08/2024 10:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Yang, > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: >> Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to >> decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> > > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 8a0ec8c2d736961f ("spi: > Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return") in spi/for-next. > >> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c >> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c >> @@ -146,8 +146,10 @@ static int lpss_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) >> c->num_chipselect = 1; >> >> ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 50000000); >> - if (ret) >> + if (ret) { >> + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); > > dma_dev is still uninitialized at this point. > >> return ret; >> + } >> >> dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn), 0)); > > dma_dev is initialized only here... > >> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); > > ... and freed automatically by lpss_dma_put_device() in case of > any later failures since commit 609d7ffdc42199a0 ("spi: pxa2xx-pci: > Balance reference count for PCI DMA device") in v5.18. > >> @@ -222,8 +224,10 @@ static int mrfld_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) >> } >> >> ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 25000000); >> - if (ret) >> + if (ret) { >> + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); >> return ret; >> + } >> >> dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(21, 0)); >> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); > > Likewise. > > Hence this patch is not needed, and introduced two bugs. Cc Greg, Jakub, David and Paolo, It seems Vivo (at least two persons from vivo.com) is sending patches generated through some sort of automation without really knowing what they were doing. All of the patches look like innocent cleanups/simplifications/fixes, but they do more. This patch here looks like introducing two bugs. These patches: 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240830033251.232992-1-yujiaoliang@vivo.com/ 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828122650.1324246-1-11162571@vivo.com/ (I sent a revert for this) 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240829072016.2329466-1-11162571@vivo.com/ and probably more... introduce dev_err_probe() outside of probe path which is not desired, because it marks a probed (working) device as deferred. The patches look trivial and/or helpful, so people tend to accept them through default trust. I kindly suggest reverse - do not trust them by default and instead do a thorough review before accepting any cleanup/trivial patch from @vivo.com. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 19:10:20 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Cc Greg, Jakub, David and Paolo,
Thanks for the heads up!
I double checked the last 12mo of networking patches, FWIW.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:55:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: > > Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to > > decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> > > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 8a0ec8c2d736961f ("spi: > Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return") in spi/for-next. Which should be reverted. Who is going to send one? I also have one revert for double applied spi-ppc44x commit. But Mark haven't replied if I need to send a v2 of that as it has Subject and first line of the commit message generated by `git revert` without editing.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:12:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > But Mark haven't replied if I need to send a v2 of that as it has Subject and > first line of the commit message generated by `git revert` without editing. Yes, you should resend.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:55:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret) { > > + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); > dma_dev is still uninitialized at this point. I'm a bit concerned that this isn't picked up by an allmodconfig with the -Werror... I'm currently using GCC 12 for that.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:57:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:55:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: > > > > - if (ret) > > > + if (ret) { > > > + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); > > > dma_dev is still uninitialized at this point. > > I'm a bit concerned that this isn't picked up by an allmodconfig with > the -Werror... I'm currently using GCC 12 for that. It shows up with -Wmaybe-uninitialized for GCC but that's disabled for the normal kernel build with commit 78a5255ffb6a ("Stop the ad-hoc games with -Wno-maybe-initialized"). With GCC 12: drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c: In function ‘mrfld_spi_setup’: drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:228:17: error: ‘dma_dev’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] 228 | pci_dev_put(dma_dev); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:198:25: note: ‘dma_dev’ was declared here 198 | struct pci_dev *dma_dev; | ^~~~~~~ drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c: In function ‘lpss_spi_setup’: drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:150:17: error: ‘dma_dev’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] 150 | pci_dev_put(dma_dev); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:100:25: note: ‘dma_dev’ was declared here 100 | struct pci_dev *dma_dev; | ^~~~~~~ Clang has it under -Wuninitialized, where it was caught with a regular allmodconfig build: drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:150:15: error: variable 'dma_dev' is uninitialized when used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized] 150 | pci_dev_put(dma_dev); | ^~~~~~~ drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:100:25: note: initialize the variable 'dma_dev' to silence this warning 100 | struct pci_dev *dma_dev; | ^ | = NULL drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:228:15: error: variable 'dma_dev' is uninitialized when used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized] 228 | pci_dev_put(dma_dev); | ^~~~~~~ drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c:198:25: note: initialize the variable 'dma_dev' to silence this warning 198 | struct pci_dev *dma_dev; | ^ | = NULL Perhaps a KCFLAGS=-Wmaybe-uninitialized in your make command or adding subdir-ccflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC) := -Wmaybe-uninitialized to the makefiles of the drivers that you maintain might not be a bad idea. Cheers, Nathan
On 2024/8/31 1:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/08/2024 10:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Hi Yang, >> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: >>> Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to >>> decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> >> >> Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 8a0ec8c2d736961f ("spi: >> Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return") in spi/for-next. >> >>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c >>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c >>> @@ -146,8 +146,10 @@ static int lpss_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) >>> c->num_chipselect = 1; >>> >>> ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 50000000); >>> - if (ret) >>> + if (ret) { >>> + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); >> >> dma_dev is still uninitialized at this point. >> >>> return ret; >>> + } >>> >>> dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn), 0)); >> >> dma_dev is initialized only here... >> >>> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); >> >> ... and freed automatically by lpss_dma_put_device() in case of >> any later failures since commit 609d7ffdc42199a0 ("spi: pxa2xx-pci: >> Balance reference count for PCI DMA device") in v5.18. >> >>> @@ -222,8 +224,10 @@ static int mrfld_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) >>> } >>> >>> ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 25000000); >>> - if (ret) >>> + if (ret) { >>> + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); >>> return ret; >>> + } >>> >>> dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(21, 0)); >>> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); >> >> Likewise. >> >> Hence this patch is not needed, and introduced two bugs. > > Cc Greg, Jakub, David and Paolo, > > It seems Vivo (at least two persons from vivo.com) is sending patches > generated through some sort of automation without really knowing what > they were doing. All of the patches look like innocent > cleanups/simplifications/fixes, but they do more. > > This patch here looks like introducing two bugs. > > These patches: > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240830033251.232992-1-yujiaoliang@vivo.com/ > > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828122650.1324246-1-11162571@vivo.com/ > (I sent a revert for this) > > 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240829072016.2329466-1-11162571@vivo.com/ > > and probably more... > > introduce dev_err_probe() outside of probe path which is not desired, > because it marks a probed (working) device as deferred. > > The patches look trivial and/or helpful, so people tend to accept them > through default trust. > > I kindly suggest reverse - do not trust them by default and instead do a > thorough review before accepting any cleanup/trivial patch from @vivo.com. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > Dear Geert, Krzysztof, and the Linux Kernel Community, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Yuesong Li, and I am writing on behalf of VIVO to sincerely apologize for the recent issues caused by the patches submitted by our team members. We deeply regret the problems that these submissions have introduced and the concerns they have raised within the community. We recognize that the patches submitted were not up to the standards expected by the Linux kernel community. It is clear that our team members did not fully understand the implications of their contributions, leading to errors and the need for reverts. This is entirely our responsibility, and we are committed to ensuring that this does not happen again. To address these issues, VIVO is taking the following steps: 1.Training for employees: We are implementing a comprehensive training program for all employees who contribute to open source projects. This training will focus on understanding the intricacies of the Linux kernel, best practices for code submissions, and the importance of thorough testing and review before submitting patches. 2.Enhanced Internal Review Process: Moving forward, we will enforce a more rigorous internal review process for all patches before they are submitted to the community. This will involve senior developers with experience in the open source community who will guide and review the work of less experienced contributors. We value the open-source community and the collaborative spirit that drives it. VIVO is committed to contributing positively and responsibly moving forward. We kindly ask for your forgiveness for the mistakes we've made and your understanding as we take concrete steps to improve. Thank you for your continued dedication to the Linux kernel, and please feel free to reach out if there are any further concerns or if you have suggestions on how we can better align with the community's expectations. Best Regards, Yuesong Li VIVO
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:56:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:12:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > But Mark haven't replied if I need to send a v2 of that as it has Subject and > > first line of the commit message generated by `git revert` without editing. > > Yes, you should resend. Got it!
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 03:23:32PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:57:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > I'm a bit concerned that this isn't picked up by an allmodconfig with > > the -Werror... I'm currently using GCC 12 for that. > > It shows up with -Wmaybe-uninitialized for GCC but that's disabled for > the normal kernel build with commit 78a5255ffb6a ("Stop the ad-hoc games > with -Wno-maybe-initialized"). With GCC 12: ... > Perhaps a KCFLAGS=-Wmaybe-uninitialized in your make command or adding > > subdir-ccflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC) := -Wmaybe-uninitialized > > to the makefiles of the drivers that you maintain might not be a bad > idea. If it's causing so many false positives that it's been disabled then that'll just cause trouble, it's always miserable whenever a subsystem decides to go with custom warning options.
On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:15:48PM +0800, Yuesong Li wrote: > > > On 2024/8/31 1:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 30/08/2024 10:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Hi Yang, > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:35 AM Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> wrote: > > > > Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to > > > > decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> > > > > > > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 8a0ec8c2d736961f ("spi: > > > Insert the missing pci_dev_put()before return") in spi/for-next. > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c > > > > @@ -146,8 +146,10 @@ static int lpss_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) > > > > c->num_chipselect = 1; > > > > > > > > ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 50000000); > > > > - if (ret) > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); > > > > > > dma_dev is still uninitialized at this point. > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn), 0)); > > > > > > dma_dev is initialized only here... > > > > > > > ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); > > > > > > ... and freed automatically by lpss_dma_put_device() in case of > > > any later failures since commit 609d7ffdc42199a0 ("spi: pxa2xx-pci: > > > Balance reference count for PCI DMA device") in v5.18. > > > > > > > @@ -222,8 +224,10 @@ static int mrfld_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) > > > > } > > > > > > > > ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 25000000); > > > > - if (ret) > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); > > > > return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(21, 0)); > > > > ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); > > > > > > Likewise. > > > > > > Hence this patch is not needed, and introduced two bugs. > > > > Cc Greg, Jakub, David and Paolo, > > > > It seems Vivo (at least two persons from vivo.com) is sending patches > > generated through some sort of automation without really knowing what > > they were doing. All of the patches look like innocent > > cleanups/simplifications/fixes, but they do more. > > > > This patch here looks like introducing two bugs. > > > > These patches: > > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240830033251.232992-1-yujiaoliang@vivo.com/ > > > > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828122650.1324246-1-11162571@vivo.com/ > > (I sent a revert for this) > > > > 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240829072016.2329466-1-11162571@vivo.com/ > > > > and probably more... > > > > introduce dev_err_probe() outside of probe path which is not desired, > > because it marks a probed (working) device as deferred. > > > > The patches look trivial and/or helpful, so people tend to accept them > > through default trust. > > > > I kindly suggest reverse - do not trust them by default and instead do a > > thorough review before accepting any cleanup/trivial patch from @vivo.com. > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > > > > > Dear Geert, Krzysztof, and the Linux Kernel Community, > > I hope this message finds you well. My name is Yuesong Li, and I am writing > on behalf of VIVO to sincerely apologize for the recent issues caused by the > patches submitted by our team members. We deeply regret the problems that > these submissions have introduced and the concerns they have raised within > the community. > > We recognize that the patches submitted were not up to the standards > expected by the Linux kernel community. It is clear that our team members > did not fully understand the implications of their contributions, leading to > errors and the need for reverts. This is entirely our responsibility, and we > are committed to ensuring that this does not happen again. > > To address these issues, VIVO is taking the following steps: > > 1.Training for employees: We are implementing a comprehensive training > program for all employees who contribute to open source projects. This > training will focus on understanding the intricacies of the Linux kernel, > best practices for code submissions, and the importance of thorough testing > and review before submitting patches. > > 2.Enhanced Internal Review Process: Moving forward, we will enforce a more > rigorous internal review process for all patches before they are submitted > to the community. This will involve senior developers with experience in the > open source community who will guide and review the work of less experienced > contributors. > > We value the open-source community and the collaborative spirit that drives > it. VIVO is committed to contributing positively and responsibly moving > forward. We kindly ask for your forgiveness for the mistakes we've made and > your understanding as we take concrete steps to improve. > > Thank you for your continued dedication to the Linux kernel, and please feel > free to reach out if there are any further concerns or if you have > suggestions on how we can better align with the community's expectations. Thanks for doing this. I've now dropped all pending vivo patches that were in my review queues and will wait for this process to happen so that they can be resubmitted after proper review by your internal groups. good luck! greg k-h
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c index cc8dcf782..a7bf4568f 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c @@ -146,8 +146,10 @@ static int lpss_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) c->num_chipselect = 1; ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 50000000); - if (ret) + if (ret) { + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); return ret; + } dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn), 0)); ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev); @@ -222,8 +224,10 @@ static int mrfld_spi_setup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pxa2xx_spi_controller *c) } ret = pxa2xx_spi_pci_clk_register(dev, ssp, 25000000); - if (ret) + if (ret) { + pci_dev_put(dma_dev); return ret; + } dma_dev = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(21, 0)); ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&dev->dev, lpss_dma_put_device, dma_dev);
Increase the reference count by calling pci_get_slot(), and remember to decrement the reference count by calling pci_dev_put(). Signed-off-by: Yang Ruibin <11162571@vivo.com> --- drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx-pci.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)