Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: fix a few issues with gpiochip_remove

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The current implementation of gpiochip_remove() does not check to see
> if the GPIO pins are busy before removing the associated irqchip and
> this is causing the following warning:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 553 at fs/proc/generic.c:521 remove_proc_entry+0x19f/0x1b0()
> remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory 'irq/24', leaking at least 'bmc150_accel_event'
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff81a78504>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x7a
>  [<ffffffff810c79bd>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7d/0xa0
>  [<ffffffff810c7a2c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4c/0x50
>  [<ffffffff8125259f>] remove_proc_entry+0x19f/0x1b0
>  [<ffffffff811138ae>] unregister_irq_proc+0xce/0xf0
>  [<ffffffff8110dbc1>] free_desc+0x31/0x70
>  [<ffffffff8110dc3c>] irq_free_descs+0x3c/0x80
>  [<ffffffff81113096>] irq_dispose_mapping+0x36/0x50
>  [<ffffffff8148549a>] gpiochip_remove+0x5a/0x160
>  [<ffffffff814895d8>] dln2_do_remove+0x18/0x80
>  [<ffffffff8148966a>] dln2_gpio_remove+0x2a/0x30
>  [<ffffffff816143bd>] platform_drv_remove+0x1d/0x40
> ...
>
> and bug:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 553, name: khubd
> Preemption disabled at:[<ffffffff81485462>] gpiochip_remove+0x22/0x160
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff81a78504>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x7a
>  [<ffffffff810e8dff>] __might_sleep+0x10f/0x180
>  [<ffffffff81a7f3f0>] mutex_lock+0x20/0x3d
>  [<ffffffff8110dbcd>] free_desc+0x3d/0x70
>  [<ffffffff8110dc3c>] irq_free_descs+0x3c/0x80
>  [<ffffffff81113096>] irq_dispose_mapping+0x36/0x50
>  [<ffffffff8148549a>] gpiochip_remove+0x5a/0x160
>  [<ffffffff814895d8>] dln2_do_remove+0x18/0x80
>  [<ffffffff8148966a>] dln2_gpio_remove+0x2a/0x30
>  [<ffffffff816143bd>] platform_drv_remove+0x1d/0x40
> ...
>
> The current implementaion also does a partial cleanup if one of the
> pins is busy, which makes it impossible to retry the remove operation
> later.
>
> A retry operation is needed in the case of MFD devices that bundles a
> GPIO device and another device that is an indirect consumer of the
> GPIO device (typical an I2C bus).
>
> In this case, when the MFD device is removed, if an I2C device
> associated with the I2C bus of the MFD device is using a GPIO pin (as
> an interrupt source for example), and the remove routine for the GPIO
> device is called first, then the removal of the gpio chip will fail.
>
> However, we can later retry the gpio chip removal, as the I2C bus will
> eventually be removed which will cause the I2C device to release the
> GPIO pin.
>
> This patch modifies gpiochip_remove to be atomic (i.e. if it fails no
> partial cleanup is done) and it also moves gpiochip_irqchip_remove()
> out of the spinlock to avoid the bug above.
>
> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 15cc0bb..0f53bef 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -314,14 +314,8 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>         int             status = 0;
>         unsigned        id;
>
> -       acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
> -
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
>
> -       gpiochip_irqchip_remove(chip);
> -       gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(chip);
> -       of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
> -
>         for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
>                 if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
>                         status = -EBUSY;
> @@ -337,8 +331,13 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>
>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
>
> -       if (status == 0)
> +       if (status == 0) {
> +               gpiochip_irqchip_remove(chip);
> +               gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(chip);
> +               of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
> +               acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>                 gpiochip_unexport(chip);
> +       }
>
>         return status;
>  }

This seems to be much better this way indeed. But isn't it still
possible for a pin to become requested between the time the spinlock
is released and the time the function exits?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/