[PATCH] irqdomain: Fix NULL pointer dererence in irq_domain_free_irqs_parent
jiang.liu at linux.intel.com
Thu Nov 20 18:49:07 PST 2014
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.
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
I'm preparing a patch for this:)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel