thr3ads.net - Linux Virtualization - [PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Michael S. Tsirkin

2017-Dec-14 19:13 UTC

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:24:02PM +0800, weiping zhang
wrote:> As mentioned at drivers/base/core.c:
> /*
>  * NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function, even
>  * if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up the
>  * reference initialized in this function instead.
>  */
> so we don't free vp_dev until vp_dev->vdev.dev.release be called.
seeing as 5739411acbaa63a6c22c91e340fdcdbcc7d82a51 adding these
annotations went to stable, should this go there too?
> Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <zhangweiping at didichuxing.com>
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>
OK but this relies on users knowing that register_virtio_device
calls device_register. I think we want to add a comment
to register_virtio_device.

Also the cleanup is uglified.

I really think the right thing would be to change device_register making
it safe to kfree. People have the right to expect register on failure to
have no effect.

That just might be too hard to implement though.

For now, my suggestion - add a variable.
> ---
>  drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> index 1c4797e..91d20f7 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> @@ -551,16 +551,17 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
>  	pci_set_master(pci_dev);
>  
>  	rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
> -	if (rc)
> -		goto err_register;
> +	if (rc) {
> +		if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
> +		     virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
> +		else
> +		     virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
> +		pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> +		put_device(&vp_dev->vdev.dev);
> +	}
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	return rc;
>  
> -err_register:
> -	if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
> -	     virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
> -	else
> -	     virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
>  err_probe:
>  	pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
>  err_enable_device:
> -- 
> 2.9.4
I'd prefer something like the below.

--->

virtio_pci: don't kfree device on register failure

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>

---

diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
index 1c4797e..995ab03 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static void virtio_pci_release_dev(struct device *_d)
 static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
 			    const struct pci_device_id *id)
 {
-	struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev;
+	struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev, *reg_dev = NULL;
 	int rc;
 
 	/* allocate our structure and fill it out */
@@ -551,6 +551,8 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
 	pci_set_master(pci_dev);
 
 	rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
+	/* NOTE: device is considered registered even if register failed. */
+	reg_dev = vp_dev;
 	if (rc)
 		goto err_register;
 
@@ -564,7 +566,10 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
 err_probe:
 	pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
 err_enable_device:
-	kfree(vp_dev);
+	if (reg_dev)
+		put_device(dev);
+	else
+		kfree(vp_dev);
 	return rc;
 }

weiping zhang

2017-Dec-15 01:38 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

2017-12-15 3:13 GMT+08:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at
redhat.com>:> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:24:02PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
>> As mentioned at drivers/base/core.c:
>> /*
>>  * NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function, even
>>  * if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up the
>>  * reference initialized in this function instead.
>>  */
>> so we don't free vp_dev until vp_dev->vdev.dev.release be
called.
>
> seeing as 5739411acbaa63a6c22c91e340fdcdbcc7d82a51 adding these
> annotations went to stable, should this go there too?
>just let people know the detail reason of using
put_device.>> Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <zhangweiping at didichuxing.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>
>
> OK but this relies on users knowing that register_virtio_device
> calls device_register. I think we want to add a comment
> to register_virtio_device.
>
> Also the cleanup is uglified.
>
> I really think the right thing would be to change device_register making
> it safe to kfree. People have the right to expect register on failure to
> have no effect.
>
> That just might be too hard to implement though.
>
> For now, my suggestion - add a variable.
>
>> ---
>>  drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> index 1c4797e..91d20f7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> @@ -551,16 +551,17 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev
*pci_dev,
>>       pci_set_master(pci_dev);
>>
>>       rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
>> -     if (rc)
>> -             goto err_register;
>> +     if (rc) {
>> +             if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
>> +                  virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
>> +             else
>> +                  virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
>> +             pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
>> +             put_device(&vp_dev->vdev.dev);
>> +     }
>>
>> -     return 0;
>> +     return rc;
>>
>> -err_register:
>> -     if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
>> -          virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
>> -     else
>> -          virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
>>  err_probe:
>>       pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
>>  err_enable_device:
>> --
>> 2.9.4
>
> I'd prefer something like the below.
>
> --->
>
> virtio_pci: don't kfree device on register failure
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> index 1c4797e..995ab03 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static void virtio_pci_release_dev(struct device *_d)
>  static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
>                             const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  {
> -       struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev;
> +       struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev, *reg_dev = NULL;
>         int rc;
>
>         /* allocate our structure and fill it out */
> @@ -551,6 +551,8 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
>         pci_set_master(pci_dev);
>
>         rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
> +       /* NOTE: device is considered registered even if register failed.
*/
> +       reg_dev = vp_dev;
>         if (rc)
>                 goto err_register;
>
> @@ -564,7 +566,10 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
>  err_probe:
>         pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
>  err_enable_device:
> -       kfree(vp_dev);
> +       if (reg_dev)
> +               put_device(dev);
> +       else
> +               kfree(vp_dev);
>         return rc;
>  }looks more cleaner and same coding style.
Need I send V3 or apply your patch directly ?> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Michael S. Tsirkin

2017-Dec-15 01:48 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:38:42AM +0800, weiping zhang
wrote:> 2017-12-15 3:13 GMT+08:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:24:02PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
> >> As mentioned at drivers/base/core.c:
> >> /*
> >>  * NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function,
even
> >>  * if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up the
> >>  * reference initialized in this function instead.
> >>  */
> >> so we don't free vp_dev until vp_dev->vdev.dev.release be
called.
> >
> > seeing as 5739411acbaa63a6c22c91e340fdcdbcc7d82a51 adding these
> > annotations went to stable, should this go there too?
> >
> just let people know the detail reason of using put_device.
> >> Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <zhangweiping at
didichuxing.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>
> >
> > OK but this relies on users knowing that register_virtio_device
> > calls device_register. I think we want to add a comment
> > to register_virtio_device.
> >
> > Also the cleanup is uglified.
> >
> > I really think the right thing would be to change device_register
making
> > it safe to kfree. People have the right to expect register on failure
to
> > have no effect.
> >
> > That just might be too hard to implement though.
> >
> > For now, my suggestion - add a variable.
> >
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> >> index 1c4797e..91d20f7 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> >> @@ -551,16 +551,17 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev
*pci_dev,
> >>       pci_set_master(pci_dev);
> >>
> >>       rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
> >> -     if (rc)
> >> -             goto err_register;
> >> +     if (rc) {
> >> +             if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
> >> +                  virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
> >> +             else
> >> +                  virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
> >> +             pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> >> +             put_device(&vp_dev->vdev.dev);
> >> +     }
> >>
> >> -     return 0;
> >> +     return rc;
> >>
> >> -err_register:
> >> -     if (vp_dev->ioaddr)
> >> -          virtio_pci_legacy_remove(vp_dev);
> >> -     else
> >> -          virtio_pci_modern_remove(vp_dev);
> >>  err_probe:
> >>       pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> >>  err_enable_device:
> >> --
> >> 2.9.4
> >
> > I'd prefer something like the below.
> >
> > --->
> >
> > virtio_pci: don't kfree device on register failure
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> > index 1c4797e..995ab03 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> > @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static void virtio_pci_release_dev(struct device
*_d)
> >  static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
> >                             const struct pci_device_id *id)
> >  {
> > -       struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev;
> > +       struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev, *reg_dev = NULL;
> >         int rc;
> >
> >         /* allocate our structure and fill it out */
> > @@ -551,6 +551,8 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev
*pci_dev,
> >         pci_set_master(pci_dev);
> >
> >         rc = register_virtio_device(&vp_dev->vdev);
> > +       /* NOTE: device is considered registered even if register
failed. */
> > +       reg_dev = vp_dev;
> >         if (rc)
> >                 goto err_register;
> >
> > @@ -564,7 +566,10 @@ static int virtio_pci_probe(struct pci_dev
*pci_dev,
> >  err_probe:
> >         pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> >  err_enable_device:
> > -       kfree(vp_dev);
> > +       if (reg_dev)
> > +               put_device(dev);
> > +       else
> > +               kfree(vp_dev);
> >         return rc;
> >  }
> looks more cleaner and same coding style.
> Need I send V3 or apply your patch directly ?
Pls post v3 updating all patches to this style.

Also just to make sure, none of this is a regression and none
of this causes actual known issues right?

I think it's preferrable to defer to next merge cycle unless this
is a regression.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Virtualization mailing list
> > Virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Cornelia Huck

2017-Dec-15 12:21 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:13:28 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:24:02PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
> > As mentioned at drivers/base/core.c:
> > /*
> >  * NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function, even
> >  * if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up the
> >  * reference initialized in this function instead.
> >  */
> > so we don't free vp_dev until vp_dev->vdev.dev.release be
called.
> 
> seeing as 5739411acbaa63a6c22c91e340fdcdbcc7d82a51 adding these
> annotations went to stable, should this go there too?
> 
> > Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <zhangweiping at didichuxing.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>  
> 
> OK but this relies on users knowing that register_virtio_device
> calls device_register. I think we want to add a comment
> to register_virtio_device.
> 
> Also the cleanup is uglified.
> 
> I really think the right thing would be to change device_register making
> it safe to kfree. People have the right to expect register on failure to
> have no effect.
> 
> That just might be too hard to implement though.
Yes. The main problem is that device_register() at some point makes the
structure visible to others, at which point they may obtain a
reference. If that happened, you cannot clean up unless that other
party gave up their reference -- which means your only chance to get
this right is the current put_device() approach.

It *is* problematic if all of that stuff is hidden behind too many
calling layers. If you have the device_initialize() -> device_add()
calling sequence, having to do a put_device() on failure is much more
obvious. But as you usually don't pass in a pure struct device but
something embedding it, the put_device() needs to be done on the
outermost level.

Commenting can help here, as would probably a static checker for that
code pattern.

Michael S. Tsirkin

2017-Dec-16 22:13 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Cornelia Huck
wrote:> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:13:28 +0200
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:24:02PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
> > > As mentioned at drivers/base/core.c:
> > > /*
> > >  * NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function,
even
> > >  * if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up
the
> > >  * reference initialized in this function instead.
> > >  */
> > > so we don't free vp_dev until vp_dev->vdev.dev.release be
called.
> > 
> > seeing as 5739411acbaa63a6c22c91e340fdcdbcc7d82a51 adding these
> > annotations went to stable, should this go there too?
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <zhangweiping at
didichuxing.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>  
> > 
> > OK but this relies on users knowing that register_virtio_device
> > calls device_register. I think we want to add a comment
> > to register_virtio_device.
> > 
> > Also the cleanup is uglified.
> > 
> > I really think the right thing would be to change device_register
making
> > it safe to kfree. People have the right to expect register on failure
to
> > have no effect.
> > 
> > That just might be too hard to implement though.
> 
> Yes. The main problem is that device_register() at some point makes the
> structure visible to others, at which point they may obtain a
> reference. If that happened, you cannot clean up unless that other
> party gave up their reference -- which means your only chance to get
> this right is the current put_device() approach.
> 
> It *is* problematic if all of that stuff is hidden behind too many
> calling layers. If you have the device_initialize() -> device_add()
> calling sequence, having to do a put_device() on failure is much more
> obvious. But as you usually don't pass in a pure struct device but
> something embedding it, the put_device() needs to be done on the
> outermost level.
> 
> Commenting can help here, as would probably a static checker for that
> code pattern.
A semantic patch is probably the best we can do here.

-- 
MST

Apparently Analagous Threads

Search for more possibly parallel threads

Linux Virtualization - Dec 2017 - [PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

[PATCH v2 1/3] virtio_pci: use put_device instead of kfree

Apparently Analagous Threads