Re: [PATCH 009/190] Revert "media: s5p-mfc: Fix a reference count leak"

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 23/04/2021 10:41, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
>> On 23/04/2021 10:10, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> On 23/04/2021 10:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> Em Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:10:32 +0200
>>>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:04:27AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/04/2021 14:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> This reverts commit 78741ce98c2e36188e2343434406b0e0bc50b0e7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
>>>>>>> faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
>>>>>>> malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
>>>>>>> paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
>>>>>>> entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
>>>>>>> Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
>>>>>>> of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
>>>>>>> the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
>>>>>>> they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
>>>>>>> change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
>>>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_pm.c | 4 +---
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks like a good commit but should be done now in a different way
>>>>>> - using pm_runtime_resume_and_get().  Therefore I am fine with revert
>>>>>> and I can submit later better fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, thanks for letting me know, I can have someone work on the
>>>>> "better fix" at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, it is better to keep the fix. I mean, there's no reason to
>>>> revert a fix that it is known to be good.
>>>>
>>>> The "better fix" patch can be produced anytime. A simple coccinelle
>>>> ruleset can replace patterns like:
>>>>
>>>> 	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pm->device);
>>>> 	if (ret < 0) {
>>>> 		pm_runtime_put_noidle(pm->device);
>>>> 		return ret;
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>> and the broken pattern:
>>>>
>>>> 	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pm->device);
>>>> 	if (ret < 0)
>>>> 		return ret;
>>>>
>>>> to:
>>>>
>>>> 	ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(pm->device);
>>>> 	if (ret < 0)
>>>> 		return ret;
>>>
>>> That's my preference as well.
>>
>> It won't be that easy because sometimes the error handling is via goto
>> (like in other patches here) but anyway I don't mind keeping the
>> original commits.
> 
> I tried the following semantic patch:
> 
> @@
> expression ret,e;
> @@
> 
> -     ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(e);
> +     ret = pm_resume_and_get(e);
>       if (ret < 0) {
>               ...
> ?-            pm_runtime_put_noidle(e);
>               ...
>               return ret;
>       }
> 
> It has the following features:
> 
> * The ? means that if pm_runtime_put_noidle is absent, the transformation
> will happen anyway.
> 
> * The ... before the return means that the matching will jump over a goto.
> 
> It makes a lot of changes (in a kernel I had handy from March).  This is a
> complicated API, however, and I don't know if there are any other issues
> to take into account, especially in the case where the call to
> pm_runtime_put_noidle is not present.

Thanks Julia, looks good.

Minor notice, the drivers could cleanup also with pm_runtime_put(). This
would not be the best code, but still would work and should be correct
(decrements runtime PM usage counter and tries to suspend the device if
it is resumed/active).

Such pattern could be in entire probe like:

device_probe() {
	if (pm_runtime_get_sync())
		return -EINVAL;
	// PM runtime usage counter inbalance on errors
	...

	// suspend device
	pm_runtime_put();

	return 0;
}
	
I think this should still work fine with your pattern, so overall risk
of errors from coccicheck is small.

Best regards,
Krzysztof