From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: johan@kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: host: xhci: Replace bus lock with host controller lock
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:50:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56BB6A3E.4020006@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160205151407.GA5257@localhost>
On 05.02.2016 17:14, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Running task list at fail point:
...
> Some of the functions appear to be inlined, the exact call chain is:
>
> hub_port_init
> usb_get_device_descriptor
> usb_get_descriptor
> usb_control_msg
> usb_internal_control_msg
> usb_start_wait_urb
> usb_submit_urb / wait_for_completion_timeout / usb_kill_urb
>
> hub_port_init
> hub_set_address
> xhci_address_device
> xhci_setup_device
>
hub_port_reset() will end up moving the corresponding xhci device slot to default state.
As hub_port_reset() is called several times in hub_port_init() It sounds reasonable
that we could end up with two threads having their xhci device slots in default state at
the same time, which according to xhci 4.5.3 specs still is a big no no.
So both threads fail at their next task after this.
One fails to read the descriptor, and the other fails addressing the device.
Nice catch btw.
> So xhci_setup_device is entered while there is an outstanding URB on the
> other bus. Unless anyone can think of a better way to fix this I'll make
> the requested changes and resend my patch.
>
For what it's wort I think that this suggested controller mutex sounds like a good idea.
Should work for xhci at least.
-Mathias
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-10 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-04 19:46 [PATCH] usb: host: xhci: Replace bus lock with host controller lock Chris Bainbridge
2016-02-04 21:00 ` Alan Stern
2016-02-04 22:06 ` Chris Bainbridge
2016-02-05 2:45 ` Alan Stern
2016-02-05 15:14 ` Chris Bainbridge
2016-02-10 16:50 ` Mathias Nyman [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=56BB6A3E.4020006@linux.intel.com \
--to=mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris.bainbridge@gmail.com \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.