[PATCH] gpio / ACPI: Don't crash on NULL chip->dev

[Mika Westerberg]

Commit aa92b6f689ac (gpio / ACPI: Allocate ACPI specific data directly in
acpi_gpiochip_add()) moved ACPI handle checking to acpi_gpiochip_add() but
forgot to check whether chip->dev is NULL before dereferencing it.

Since chip->dev pointer is optional we can end up with crash like following:

 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000138
 IP: [<c126c2b3>] acpi_gpiochip_add+0x13/0x190
 *pde = 00000000
 Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
 Modules linked in: ssb(+) ...
 CPU: 0 PID: 512 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G        W     3.14.0-rc7-next-20140324-t1 #24
 Hardware name: Dell Inc. Latitude D830                   /0UY141, BIOS A02 06/07/2007
 task: f5799900 ti: f543e000 task.ti: f543e000
 EIP: 0060:[<c126c2b3>] EFLAGS: 00010282 CPU: 0
 EIP is at acpi_gpiochip_add+0x13/0x190
 EAX: 00000000 EBX: f57824c4 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
 ESI: f57824c4 EDI: 00000010 EBP: f543fc54 ESP: f543fc40
  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0033 SS: 0068
 CR0: 8005003b CR2: 00000138 CR3: 355f8000 CR4: 000007d0
 Stack:
  f543fc5c fd1f7790 f57824c4 000000be 00000010 f543fc84 c1269f4e f543fc74
  fd1f78bd 00008002 f57822b0 f5782090 fd1f8400 00000286 fd1f9994 00000000
  f5782000 f543fc8c fd1f7e39 f543fcc8 fd1f0bd8 000000c0 00000000 00000000
 Call Trace:
  [<fd1f7790>] ? ssb_pcie_mdio_write+0xa0/0xd0 [ssb]
  [<c1269f4e>] gpiochip_add+0xee/0x300
  [<fd1f78bd>] ? ssb_pcicore_serdes_workaround+0xfd/0x140 [ssb]
  [<fd1f7e39>] ssb_gpio_init+0x89/0xa0 [ssb]
  [<fd1f0bd8>] ssb_attach_queued_buses+0xc8/0x2d0 [ssb]
  [<fd1f0f65>] ssb_bus_register+0x185/0x1f0 [ssb]
  [<fd1f3120>] ? ssb_pci_xtal+0x220/0x220 [ssb]
  [<fd1f106c>] ssb_bus_pcibus_register+0x2c/0x80 [ssb]
  [<fd1f40dc>] ssb_pcihost_probe+0x9c/0x110 [ssb]
  [<c1276c8f>] pci_device_probe+0x6f/0xc0
  [<c11bdb55>] ? sysfs_create_link+0x25/0x40
  [<c131d8b9>] driver_probe_device+0x79/0x360
  [<c1276512>] ? pci_match_device+0xb2/0xc0
  [<c131dc51>] __driver_attach+0x71/0x80
  [<c131dbe0>] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
  [<c131bd87>] bus_for_each_dev+0x47/0x80
  [<c131d3ae>] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
  [<c131dbe0>] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
  [<c131d007>] bus_add_driver+0x157/0x230
  [<c131e219>] driver_register+0x59/0xe0
  ...

Fix this by checking chip->dev pointer against NULL first. Also we can now
remove redundant check in acpi_gpiochip_request/free_interrupts().

Reported-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Sabrina,

Can you please re-test this and provide your tested-by? I changed the patch
a bit to remove redundant checks. Just to be sure that I don't accidentally
break something.

Thanks.

 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
index bf0f8b476696..d5be56fe689e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct acpi_gpio_chip *acpi_gpio)
 {
 	struct gpio_chip *chip = acpi_gpio->chip;
 
-	if (!chip->dev || !chip->to_irq)
+	if (!chip->to_irq)
 		return;
 
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&acpi_gpio->events);
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static void acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts(struct acpi_gpio_chip *acpi_gpio)
 	struct acpi_gpio_event *event, *ep;
 	struct gpio_chip *chip = acpi_gpio->chip;
 
-	if (!chip->dev || !chip->to_irq)
+	if (!chip->to_irq)
 		return;
 
 	list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(event, ep, &acpi_gpio->events, node) {
@@ -501,6 +501,9 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip)
 	acpi_handle handle;
 	acpi_status status;
 
+	if (!chip || !chip->dev)
+		return;
+
 	handle = ACPI_HANDLE(chip->dev);
 	if (!handle)
 		return;
@@ -531,6 +534,9 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
 	acpi_handle handle;
 	acpi_status status;
 
+	if (!chip || !chip->dev)
+		return;
+
 	handle = ACPI_HANDLE(chip->dev);
 	if (!handle)
 		return;
-- 
1.9.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/