From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Adrian Ambrozewicz <aambrozewicz@nvidia.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
Jia Jia <physicalmtea@gmail.com>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] gpiolib: free the label of lines released after their chip was removed
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:38:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <atIouwa5R8sb0nS-@ashevche-desk.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016-gpiolib-chip-removal-v2-2-aambrozewicz@nvidia.com>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 12:23:34PM +0300, Adrian Ambrozewicz wrote:
> gpiod_free_commit() only drops the consumer label while the chip is
> still there:
>
> if (guard.gc && test_bit(GPIOD_FLAG_REQUESTED, &flags)) {
> ...
> desc_set_label(desc, NULL);
>
> A line that is still requested when gpiochip_remove() runs, for instance
> by a character device line request that user space keeps open, is
> released only afterwards, when gdev->chip is already NULL. Its label is
> then never freed, as gpiodev_release() frees the descriptor array but
> not the labels, and kmemleak reports one object per such line:
>
> unreferenced object (size 32):
> comm "gpio-hold"
> backtrace:
Be consistent, in other patch it's called Call Trace:. Is it really different
wording in the Oopses you got?
> desc_set_label
> gpiod_request_commit
> gpiod_request
> linereq_create
> gpio_ioctl
>
> Commit 1f2bcb8c8ccd ("gpio: protect the descriptor label with SRCU")
> cleared the label unconditionally; it moved under the chip check with
> the removal of gpio_lock. Return early only for a line that is not
> requested on a live chip, and clear the label before the chip check, so
> that it is also freed when the chip is gone. The ->free() callback, the
> flags update and the line state notification still need the chip and
> stay under the check; with the chip gone, no character device file can
> receive the notification any more.
>
> The label is now often freed just before the last reference to the GPIO
> device goes away, which depends on gpiodev_release() waiting for pending
> label frees (previous patch).
>
> Reproduced with gpio-sim: request a line through the character device,
> set the chip's configfs "live" attribute to 0 while the request is open,
> then close it. Without this change kmemleak reports between 15 and 30
> such objects after 30 cycles; with it, none after 100.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 9:23 [PATCH v2 0/6] gpiolib: fix chip removal with lines still requested from user space Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 9:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] gpiolib: wait for pending label frees before cleaning up desc_srcu Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 9:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] gpiolib: free the label of lines released after their chip was removed Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 13:38 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2026-10-16 9:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] gpiolib: cdev: do not free line IRQs again after the chip is removed Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 9:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] gpiolib: cdev: don't sleep in the SRCU read section in read() Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 9:23 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] gpiolib: cdev: don't leak the IRQ name when the chip is removed Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 13:41 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-10-16 9:23 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] gpiolib: let the character device free its IRQs first on chip removal Adrian Ambrozewicz
2026-10-16 13:40 ` Kent Gibson
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=atIouwa5R8sb0nS-@ashevche-desk.local \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aambrozewicz@nvidia.com \
--cc=bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=brgl@kernel.org \
--cc=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=linusw@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=physicalmtea@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=warthog618@gmail.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®