From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Frank.Li@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Invoke the callback directly
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:44:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260703094440.18xlPGEl@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260703084521.D8F4B1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>
On 2026-07-03 08:45:21 [+0000], sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > index 745ce52cd8226..a1f2b76ec8187 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> [ ... ]
> > static void imx_rproc_rx_callback(struct mbox_client *cl, void *msg)
> > {
> > struct rproc *rproc = dev_get_drvdata(cl->dev);
> >
> > - queue_work(priv->workqueue, &priv->rproc_work);
> > + idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, imx_rproc_notified_idr_cb, rproc);
>
> [Severity: High]
> This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this lockless iteration
> over the notifyids IDR lack RCU protection?
>
> Because imx_rproc_rx_callback() now runs in a preemptible context (threaded
> IRQ handler), it iterates over the rproc->notifyids IDR using idr_for_each()
> without the rcu_read_lock().
>
> The IDR API requires lockless readers to hold rcu_read_lock() to prevent radix
> tree nodes from being freed during traversal. If a concurrent modification
> like idr_remove() occurs during teardown, the RCU grace period could expire,
> leading to a use-after-free on the IDR internal nodes.
If I see this right there is no RCU involved. First the interrupt gets
removed (via free_irq()) which ensures that it is no longer active and
then the channel is removed.
> > }
> >
> > static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct rproc *rproc, bool tx_block)
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -1273,17 +1253,6 @@ static int imx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > priv->ops = dcfg->ops;
> >
> > dev_set_drvdata(dev, rproc);
> > - priv->workqueue = create_workqueue(dev_name(dev));
> > - if (!priv->workqueue) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "cannot create workqueue\n");
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > - }
> > -
> > - ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, imx_rproc_destroy_workqueue, priv->workqueue);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to add devm destroy workqueue action\n");
> > -
> > - INIT_WORK(&priv->rproc_work, imx_rproc_vq_work);
> >
> > ret = imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(rproc, true);
> > if (ret)
>
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but could the devm cleanup order in
> imx_rproc_probe() lead to a use-after-free during driver teardown?
>
> Earlier in imx_rproc_probe(), the mailbox cleanup action imx_rproc_free_mbox
> is registered via devm_add_action_or_reset() before devm_rproc_add() is
> called.
>
> Because devm actions execute in LIFO order, devm_rproc_remove() executes
> first, which tears down the remote processor and frees virtio subdevices and
> their IDR entries.
>
> This leaves a dangerous race window during driver unbind where the mailbox is
> still fully active while the core remoteproc data structures are being torn
> down. If a mailbox interrupt fires during this window, the RX handler will
> access the notifyids IDR and rvring structures while they are concurrently
> being modified or freed by rproc_del().
The notifyids IDR is removed by devm_rproc_free() not by
devm_rproc_remove(). This should remove the channel which removes IRQ.
This looks fine to me.
Sebastian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-03 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260703-imx_mbox_rproc-v4-1-67b10560a861@linutronix.de>
2026-07-03 8:45 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-03 9:44 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260703094440.18xlPGEl@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=Frank.Li@kernel.org \
--cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox