[PATCH] PCI: iproc: fix resource allocation for BCMA PCIe

[Abylay Ospan]

Yes, you right. Now it's clear.

Thanks !

2017-02-08 17:27 GMT-05:00 Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas at kernel.org>:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 05:07:27PM -0500, Abylay Ospan wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>>
>> I have checked first listed driver
>> (drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c). Seems like into
>> 'devm_request_pci_bus_resources' we supply same stack allocated 'res'
>> (actual insert of this pointer to 'iomem_resource' was done inside
>> '__request_resource'). This 'res' is not changed inside
>> 'of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources'.
>> I don't have this platforms on hand and cannot test it on real
>> hadrware (to 100% verify). But investigating this code I see that the
>> problem exist.
>>
>> Here is a summary of flow for 'res' to show the problem:
>>
>> pcie-designware.c:
>>   LIST_HEAD(res);
>>   ret = of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(np, 0, 0xff, &res,
>> &pp->io_base); <--- 'res' not changing here
>>   ret = devm_request_pci_bus_resources(&pdev->dev, &res);
>>
>>   drivers/pci/bus.c:
>>     err = devm_request_resource(dev, parent, res);
>>
>>     kernel/resource.c:
>>       conflict = request_resource_conflict(root, new);
>>         conflict = __request_resource(root, new);
>>           *p = new;  <--- here we introduce stack allocated res into
>> global 'iomem_resource'
>>
>>
>> Please check and correct me if i'm wrong ?
>
> The "res" in dw_pcie_host_init() is a list_head (not a struct
> resource) and is on the stack.
>
> When we call of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(), we pass a pointer
> ("&res") to the empty list.  It kzallocs a struct resource for the bus
> range and more for any bridge windows, and adds them to the list.
>
> When we call devm_request_pci_bus_resources(), we pass a pointer
> ("&res") to the list, which is no longer empty.  It iterates through
> the list and calls devm_request_resource() for each resource.  Inside
> devm_request_pci_bus_resources(), "res" is the pointer to the resource
> (not the list_head), and this resource is the one we kzalloc'd above.
>
> When devm_request_resource() calls request_resource_conflict(), it
> passes that pointer to the kzalloc'd resource (the pointer is called
> "new" in devm_request_resource()).)
>
> So when __request_resource() assigns "*p = new", it is copying a
> pointer to a kzalloc'd struct resource.
>
> This is certainly a twisty maze of similar names for different things,
> but I think it is OK if the list_head is on the stack as long as the
> struct resources are kzalloc'd.
>
>> >   dw_pcie_host_init
>> >     LIST_HEAD(res)                            # on stack
>> >     of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(np, 0, 0xff, &res, &pp->io_base)
>> >       res = kzalloc()                         # different "res" from above!
>> >       pci_add_resource_offset(resources, res, ...)
>> >     devm_request_pci_bus_resources(&pdev->dev, &res)
>> >     pci_scan_root_bus(pp->dev, pp->root_bus_nr, &dw_pcie_ops, pp, &res)
>> >     error:
>> >       pci_free_resource_list(&res)
>>
>> > This looks good to me, but I don't think it's necessary to keep the
>> > list_head in the struct iproc_pcie.  It should be safe to use
>> > "LIST_HEAD(res)" on the stack like the other drivers do.  Can you
>> > verify that and get an ack from Ray, Scott, or Jon?
>>
>> if my investigation above is true then we need to keep 'res' all the
>> time we working with the driver (or find another way to fix this
>> issue).
>>
>> --
>> Abylay Ospan,
>> NetUP Inc.
>> http://www.netup.tv



-- 
Abylay Ospan,
NetUP Inc.
http://www.netup.tv