[PATCH] irqdomain: Fix NULL pointer dererence in irq_domain_free_irqs_parent
Suravee.Suthikulpanit at amd.com
Thu Nov 20 19:06:54 PST 2014
On 11/20/2014 08:49 PM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2014/11/21 10:08, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> On 11/20/2014 07:32 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, suravee.suthikulpanit at amd.com wrote:
>>>> This patch checks if the parent domain is NULL before recursively
>>>> irqs in the parent domains.
>>> Which is nonsense, because if the thing has not been allocated in the
>>> first place, then it cannot explode in the free path magically, except
>>> there is a missing check in the allocation path error handling.
>>> And that's obviously not the case simply because this originates from:
>>>> [<fffffe0000449278>] pci_disable_msix+0x40/0x50
>> In this case, I have the following irq domain hierarchy:
>> [GIC] -- [GICv2m] -- [MSI]
>> which recursively calling the freeing function:
>> In GIC domain, it currently defines the struct irq_domain_ops.free() with :
>> --> irq_domain_free_irqs_top()
>> |--> irq_domain_free_irqs_common()
>> |--> irq_domain_free_irq_parent()
>> |--> irq_domain_free_irqs_recursive()
>> and there is no check before passing the NULL domain->parent into the
>> irq_domain_free_irqs_recursive(), which causes the error.
>> Since the GIC is the top most domain, it does not have parent domain.
>> So, I'm not sure what is missing from the allocation path error
>> handling, as you mentioned.
> Hi Thomas,
> We have had a discussion about this issue in another thread.
> Originally irq_domain_free_irqs_common() is designed to be used by
> irqdomains with parent. But there are desires to reuse it to support
> irqdomains without parent too for code reduction.
> So I suggest to change irq_domain_free_irqs_common() instead of
> irq_domain_free_irqs_parent() because caller of
> irq_domain_free_irqs_parent() should guarantee current domain do have
> a parent.
> I'm preparing a patch for this:)
Thanks Gerry and Thomas.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel