A refcount issue can appeared in __fwnode_link_del() due to the pr_debug() call: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 901 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xe5/0x110 Call Trace: <TASK> ... of_node_get+0x1e/0x30 of_fwnode_get+0x28/0x40 fwnode_full_name_string+0x34/0x90 fwnode_string+0xdb/0x140 ... vsnprintf+0x17b/0x630 ... __fwnode_link_del+0x25/0xa0 fwnode_links_purge+0x39/0xb0 of_node_release+0xd9/0x180 ...
Indeed, an fwnode (of_node) is being destroyed and so, of_node_release() is called because the of_node refcount reached 0. From of_node_release() several function calls are done and lead to a pr_debug() calls with %pfwf to print the fwnode full name. The issue is not present if we change %pfwf to %pfwP.
To print the full name, %pfwf iterates over the current node and its parents and obtain/drop a reference to all nodes involved.
In order to allow to print the full name (%pfwf) of a node while it is being destroyed, do not obtain/drop a reference to this current node.
Fixes: a92eb7621b9f ("lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Herve Codina herve.codina@bootlin.com --- Changes v1 -> v2 - Avoid handling current node out of the loop. Instead obtain/drop references in the loop based on the depth value. - Remove some of the backtrace lines in the commit log.
lib/vsprintf.c | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c index afb88b24fa74..633f5481ac17 100644 --- a/lib/vsprintf.c +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c @@ -2110,15 +2110,20 @@ char *fwnode_full_name_string(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, char *buf,
/* Loop starting from the root node to the current node. */ for (depth = fwnode_count_parents(fwnode); depth >= 0; depth--) { - struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode = - fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth); + /* + * Only get a reference for other nodes (ie parents node). + * fwnode refcount may be 0 here. + */ + struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode = depth ? + fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth) : fwnode;
buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name_prefix(__fwnode), default_str_spec); buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name(__fwnode), default_str_spec);
- fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode); + if (depth) + fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode); }
return buf;
Hi Herve,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
A refcount issue can appeared in __fwnode_link_del() due to the pr_debug() call: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 901 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xe5/0x110 Call Trace:
<TASK> ... of_node_get+0x1e/0x30 of_fwnode_get+0x28/0x40 fwnode_full_name_string+0x34/0x90 fwnode_string+0xdb/0x140 ... vsnprintf+0x17b/0x630 ... __fwnode_link_del+0x25/0xa0 fwnode_links_purge+0x39/0xb0 of_node_release+0xd9/0x180 ...
Indeed, an fwnode (of_node) is being destroyed and so, of_node_release() is called because the of_node refcount reached 0. From of_node_release() several function calls are done and lead to a pr_debug() calls with %pfwf to print the fwnode full name. The issue is not present if we change %pfwf to %pfwP.
To print the full name, %pfwf iterates over the current node and its parents and obtain/drop a reference to all nodes involved.
In order to allow to print the full name (%pfwf) of a node while it is being destroyed, do not obtain/drop a reference to this current node.
Fixes: a92eb7621b9f ("lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Herve Codina herve.codina@bootlin.com
Changes v1 -> v2
- Avoid handling current node out of the loop. Instead obtain/drop references in the loop based on the depth value.
- Remove some of the backtrace lines in the commit log.
lib/vsprintf.c | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c index afb88b24fa74..633f5481ac17 100644 --- a/lib/vsprintf.c +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c @@ -2110,15 +2110,20 @@ char *fwnode_full_name_string(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, char *buf, /* Loop starting from the root node to the current node. */ for (depth = fwnode_count_parents(fwnode); depth >= 0; depth--) {
struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode =
fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth);
/*
* Only get a reference for other nodes (ie parents node).
"i.e."
With that,
Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com
* fwnode refcount may be 0 here.
*/
struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode = depth ?
fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth) : fwnode;
buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name_prefix(__fwnode), default_str_spec); buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name(__fwnode), default_str_spec);
fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode);
if (depth)
}fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode);
return buf;
Hi Sakari,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:47:25 +0000 Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com wrote:
[...]
* Only get a reference for other nodes (ie parents node).
"i.e."
Will be changed in the next iteration.
With that,
Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com
Best regards, Hervé
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
A refcount issue can appeared in __fwnode_link_del() due to the pr_debug() call: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 901 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xe5/0x110 Call Trace:
<TASK> ... of_node_get+0x1e/0x30 of_fwnode_get+0x28/0x40 fwnode_full_name_string+0x34/0x90 fwnode_string+0xdb/0x140 ... vsnprintf+0x17b/0x630 ... __fwnode_link_del+0x25/0xa0 fwnode_links_purge+0x39/0xb0 of_node_release+0xd9/0x180 ...
Indeed, an fwnode (of_node) is being destroyed and so, of_node_release() is called because the of_node refcount reached 0. From of_node_release() several function calls are done and lead to a pr_debug() calls with %pfwf to print the fwnode full name. The issue is not present if we change %pfwf to %pfwP.
To print the full name, %pfwf iterates over the current node and its parents and obtain/drop a reference to all nodes involved.
In order to allow to print the full name (%pfwf) of a node while it is being destroyed, do not obtain/drop a reference to this current node.
One nit-pick below, otherwise Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
...
/* Loop starting from the root node to the current node. */ for (depth = fwnode_count_parents(fwnode); depth >= 0; depth--) {
struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode =
fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth);
/*
* Only get a reference for other nodes (ie parents node).
"parent's node" (doesn't look right)? Or "parent nodes"?
* fwnode refcount may be 0 here.
*/
struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode = depth ?
fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth) : fwnode;
buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name_prefix(__fwnode), default_str_spec); buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name(__fwnode), default_str_spec);
fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode);
if (depth)
}fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode);
Hi Andy,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:59:35 +0200 Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
[...]
One nit-pick below, otherwise Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
...
/* Loop starting from the root node to the current node. */ for (depth = fwnode_count_parents(fwnode); depth >= 0; depth--) {
struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode =
fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth);
/*
* Only get a reference for other nodes (ie parents node).
"parent's node" (doesn't look right)? Or "parent nodes"?
Will be changed to "parent nodes" in the next iteration.
Best regards, Hervé
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org