diff mbox series

[5/9] driver core: do not always lock parent in shutdown

Message ID 20260902170734.95504-6-djeffery@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series shut down devices asynchronously | expand

Commit Message

David Jeffery Sept. 2, 2026, 5:07 p.m. UTC
Don't lock a parent device unless it is needed in device_shutdown. This
is in preparation for making device shutdown asynchronous, when it will
be needed to allow children of a common parent to shut down
simultaneously.

And only acquire a reference to the parent device if the parent is to be
locked.

Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tarun Sahu <tarunsahu@google.com>
Tested-by: Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/base/core.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Comments

sashiko-bot@kernel.org Sept. 2, 2026, 5:25 p.m. UTC | #1
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Incorrect condition ordering leads to a potential Use-After-Free of `dev->bus` during device shutdown.
--

commit b894dd7ffd5113988601f8e495c49a29524ecb74
Author: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>

driver core: do not always lock parent in shutdown

This commit avoids unconditionally locking a parent device during device
shutdown. It introduces __shutdown_one_device and updates
shutdown_one_device to only acquire the parent lock when needed to prevent
races with probe or release operations.

> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index 7fe3fa6870a72..05285fae143d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -4928,13 +4926,33 @@ static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev, struct device *parent)
>  			dev_info(dev, "shutdown\n");
>  		dev->driver->shutdown(dev);
>  	}
> +}
>  
> -	device_unlock(dev);
> -	if (parent)
> +static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct device *parent;
> +
> +	device_lock(dev);
> +
> +	/* use parent lock if needed to avoid race with probe/release */
> +	if (dev->bus && dev->bus->need_parent_lock && dev->p && !dev->p->dead &&
[Severity: High]
Could this condition ordering lead to a use-after-free during device shutdown?

If a module is unloaded concurrently with system shutdown, device_del() sets
dev->p->dead to true and removes the device from the bus.

Since device_shutdown() already incremented the device's refcount, the
device structure is preserved. However, when the module finishes unloading, it
unregisters the bus and frees the bus_type structure.

Because of left-to-right evaluation in this if statement,
dev->bus->need_parent_lock is accessed before checking !dev->p->dead.

Would checking dev->p && !dev->p->dead before accessing bus properties
prevent reading from the potentially unmapped bus structure?

> +	    (parent = get_device(dev->parent))) {
> +		/* the parent lock needs to be acquired first, so re-lock */
> +		device_unlock(dev);
> +
> +		device_lock(parent);
> +		device_lock(dev);
> +
> +		__shutdown_one_device(dev);
> +		device_unlock(dev);
>  		device_unlock(parent);
> +		put_device(parent);
> +	} else {
> +		__shutdown_one_device(dev);
> +		device_unlock(dev);
> +	}
>  
>  	put_device(dev);
> -	put_device(parent);
>  }
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index 7fe3fa6870a7..05285fae143d 100644
--- a/drivers/base/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -4903,12 +4903,10 @@  int device_change_owner(struct device *dev, kuid_t kuid, kgid_t kgid)
 	return error;
 }
 
-static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev, struct device *parent)
+static void __shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev)
 {
-	/* hold lock to avoid race with probe/release */
-	if (parent)
-		device_lock(parent);
-	device_lock(dev);
+	if (!dev->p || dev->p->dead)
+		return;
 
 	/* Don't allow any more runtime suspends */
 	pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
@@ -4928,13 +4926,33 @@  static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev, struct device *parent)
 			dev_info(dev, "shutdown\n");
 		dev->driver->shutdown(dev);
 	}
+}
 
-	device_unlock(dev);
-	if (parent)
+static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct device *parent;
+
+	device_lock(dev);
+
+	/* use parent lock if needed to avoid race with probe/release */
+	if (dev->bus && dev->bus->need_parent_lock && dev->p && !dev->p->dead &&
+	    (parent = get_device(dev->parent))) {
+		/* the parent lock needs to be acquired first, so re-lock */
+		device_unlock(dev);
+
+		device_lock(parent);
+		device_lock(dev);
+
+		__shutdown_one_device(dev);
+		device_unlock(dev);
 		device_unlock(parent);
+		put_device(parent);
+	} else {
+		__shutdown_one_device(dev);
+		device_unlock(dev);
+	}
 
 	put_device(dev);
-	put_device(parent);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -4942,7 +4960,7 @@  static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev, struct device *parent)
  */
 void device_shutdown(void)
 {
-	struct device *dev, *parent;
+	struct device *dev;
 
 	wait_for_device_probe();
 	device_block_probing();
@@ -4960,12 +4978,6 @@  void device_shutdown(void)
 		dev = list_entry(devices_kset->list.prev, struct device,
 				kobj.entry);
 
-		/*
-		 * hold reference count of device's parent to
-		 * prevent it from being freed because parent's
-		 * lock is to be held
-		 */
-		parent = get_device(dev->parent);
 		get_device(dev);
 		/*
 		 * Make sure the device is off the kset list, in the
@@ -4974,7 +4986,7 @@  void device_shutdown(void)
 		list_del_init(&dev->kobj.entry);
 		spin_unlock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
 
-		shutdown_one_device(dev, parent);
+		shutdown_one_device(dev);
 
 		spin_lock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
 	}