Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 2/7] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:43:36 PM Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:40:58PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:27:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * device_is_dependent - Check if one device depends on another one
> > > + * @dev: Device to check dependencies for.
> > > + * @target: Device to check against.
> > > + *
> > > + * Check if @dev or any device dependent on it (its child or its consumer etc)
> > > + * depends on @target.  Return 1 if that is the case or 0 otherwise.
> > > + */
> > > +static int device_is_dependent(struct device *dev, void *target)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct device_link *link;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	ret = device_for_each_child(dev, target, device_is_dependent);
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(link, &dev->links_to_consumers, s_node) {
> > > +		if (WARN_ON(link->consumer == target))
> > > +			return 1;
> > > +
> > > +		ret = ret || device_is_dependent(link->consumer, target);
> > > +	}
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > 
> > What happens if someone tries to add a device link from a parent
> > (as the consumer) to a child (as a supplier)?  You're only checking
> > if target is a consumer of dev, for full correctness you'd also have
> > to check if target is a parent of dev.  (Or grandparent, or great-
> > grandparent, ... you need to walk the tree up to the root.)
> > 
> > 
> > The function can be sped up by returning immediately if a match
> > is found instead of continuing searching and accumulating the
> > result in ret, i.e.:
> > 
> > 	if (device_for_each_child(dev, target, device_is_dependent))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > and in the list_for_each_entry block:
> > 
> > 	if (device_is_dependent(link->consumer, target))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > Then at the end of the function "return 0".
> > 
> > 
> > I'd move the WARN_ON() to the single invocation of this function in
> > device_link_add(), that way it's possible to use the function as a
> > helper elsewhere should the need arise.
> 
> Oh I'm grasping only now, you want to emit a WARN for *every*
> infringing child/consumer. That could lead to a WARN flood if
> a developer accidentally does something really dumb, like linking
> the PCI root to some PCI endpoint device, but fair enough.
> 
> The point about linking a parent to a child still stands however.
> I think a simple way to check this is to just add
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON(dev == target))
> 		return 1;
> 
> at the top of the function, because when someone tries to link
> a parent to a child, when recursing from the parent downward
> one will eventually hit that child. This will also prevent
> someone from linking a device to itself.

I actually would prefer to make it impossible to link a parent to
a child at all.

Thanks,
Rafael