Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_tis: Free IRQ if probing fails

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 08:11:15PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 4/13/20 8:07 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:04:25PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Hi Jarkko,
> > > 
> > > On 4/12/20 7:04 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > Call devm_free_irq() if we have to revert to polling in order not to
> > > > unnecessarily reserve the IRQ for the life-cycle of the driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.5.x
> > > > Reported-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: e3837e74a06d ("tpm_tis: Refactor the interrupt setup")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 5 ++++-
> > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > > index 27c6ca031e23..ae6868e7b696 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > > @@ -1062,9 +1062,12 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
> > > >    		if (irq) {
> > > >    			tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, IRQF_SHARED,
> > > >    						 irq);
> > > > -			if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ))
> > > > +			if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ)) {
> > > >    				dev_err(&chip->dev, FW_BUG
> > > >    					"TPM interrupt not working, polling instead\n");
> > > > +				devm_free_irq(chip->dev.parent, priv->irq,
> > > > +					      chip);
> > > > +			}
> > > 
> > > My initial plan was actually to do something similar, but if the probe code
> > > is actually ever fixed to work as intended again then this will lead to a
> > > double free as then the IRQ-test path of tpm_tis_send() will have called
> > > disable_interrupts() which already calls devm_free_irq().
> > > 
> > > You could check for chip->irq != 0 here to avoid that.
> > > 
> > > But it all is rather messy, which is why I went with the "#if 0" approach
> > > in my patch.
> > 
> > I think it is right way to fix it. It is a bug independent of the issue
> > we are experiencing.
> > 
> > However, what you are suggesting should be done in addition. Do you have
> > a patch in place or do you want me to refine mine?
> 
> I do not have a patch ready for this, if you can refine yours that would
> be great.

Thanks! Just wanted to confirm.

/Jarkko