Re: [PATCH 0/5] xHCI: Decouple updating Dequeue from giveback

[Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>]

On 11/19/25 13:02, Michal Pecio wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This introduces unified mechanism for handling all short transfers
> and errors mid TD plus their later events, accurately and in-spec.
> I have been working on this code on and off for the last few months,
> it's dead simple conceptually and tested a lot on various hardware.
> 
> When a TD completes early, store its end_trb on ep_ring and give it
> back. Use end_trb to recognize future events for the TD. Remove the
> SPURIOUS_SUCCESS quirk and unreliable comp code guesswork.
> 
> Isochronous TDs with errors are given back instantly, which reduces
> latency and eliminates the need for error_mid_td flag and some hacks
> like handling Missed Service only to give back error_mid_td.
> 
> Dequeue will be moved in accordance with received events, never to
> the next TD right away. Previous code would do that on Short Packet,
> allowing overwriting of remaining TRBs if it happens across segment
> boundary. Rare enough that no one complained, but obviously wrong.
> 
> We will need a trb_in_range(), and I used this as an opportunity to
> smuggle some long-discussed changes and improve trb_in_td() usage.
> After converting from dma_addr_t to trb* once in handle_tx_event(),
> pass ep_trb instead ep_trb_dma to trb_in_td().
> 
> This requires a rewrite of trb_in_td(). New version is easier and
> shorter. While I'm aware it could be shorter still by using segment
> numbers, it has two advantages which I thought are neat:
> 
> * It can detect when "suspect" TRB is on a different ring than TD.
>    This means it has a loop, but common cases never enter it.
> 
>    (And yes, I've seen this warning once, but I suspect corruption -
>     DMA UAF was involved. Things improved with pdev->untrusted = 1).
> 
> * Needs only one segment pointer (suspect). Call sites are tidier
>    and I don't need to store last TD's end_seg together with end_trb.
> 
> Alternatively, segment numbers can also be used, but I really wanted
> to see if the code could be less noisy.


Looks like we both picked this up again.

I have queued up a couple patches that does basically the same trb_in_range()
changes as your patches 2/5 and 3/5, but uses segment indexes.

I'm sending all for-usb-next patches forward today for 6.19, including those
two patches. Just need to do one small test.

I'll take a closer look at the rest of the series (patches 1/5, 4/5, and 5/5)
They all seam like a good idea, but will need to be rebased on current
for-usb-next

Links to the two patches I mentioned:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/commit/?h=for-usb-next&id=7cca2b801bae19bfda2e54d7187f78e8af3f3700
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/commit/?h=for-usb-next&id=b78fafee824b964c1db718662ef9854f9d7154dc

Link to my for-usb-next branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/log/?h=for-usb-next

Thanks
Mathias