lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: vpd: Fix section enabled flag on vpd_section_destroy
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:23:05AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:13:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:48:57PM +0300, Anton Vasilyev wrote:
> > > static struct ro_vpd and rw_vpd are initialized by vpd_sections_init()
> > > in vpd_probe() based on header's ro and rw sizes.
> > > In vpd_remove() vpd_section_destroy() performs deinitialization based
> > > on enabled flag, which is set to true by vpd_sections_init().
> > > This leads to call of vpd_section_destroy() on already destroyed section
> > > for probe-release-probe-release sequence if first probe performs
> > > ro_vpd initialization and second probe does not initialize it.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure if the situation described can be seen in the first place.
> > The second probe would only not perform ro_vpd initialization if it fails
> > prior to that, ie if it fails to allocate memory or if there is a
> > consistency problem. In that case the remove function would not be called.
> >
> > However, there is a problem in the code: A partially failed probe will
> > leave the system in inconsistent state. Example: ro section initializes,
> > rw section fails to initialize. The probe will fail, but the ro section
> > will not be destroyed, its sysfs attributes still exist, and its memory
> > is still mapped. It would make more sense to fix _that_ problem.
> > Essentially, vpd_sections_init() should clean up after itself after it
> > fails to initialize a section.
> >
> > Note that I am not convinced that the "enabled" flag is needed in the first
> > place. It is only relevant if vpd_section_destroy() is called, which only
> > happens from the remove function. The remove function is only called if the
> > probe function succeeded. In that case it is always set for both sections.
>
> The problem will happen if coreboot memory changes between 2 probes so
> that header.ro_size is not 0 on the first pass and is 0 on the second
> pass. Not quite likely to ever happen in real life, but resetting a flag
> is pretty cheap to not do it.
>

If that can happen between probes, meaning it is not guaranteed to be
constant during the lifetime of the system, doesn't that mean it can
happen anytime ?

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-23 20:28    [W:0.062 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site