From: "Asier Llano Palacios" <a.llano@ziv.es>
To: <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: a.arzuaga@ziv.es
Subject: [PATCH] Found skb leak in mpc5200 fec on rxfifo error
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:51:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1255693910.4683.161.camel@allano> (raw)
Hi all,
I finally found why in my mpc5200 based system (and in the lite5200) I
had leaks of skbs when receiving ethernet traffic at 100 Mbit/s so that
we generated an rxfifo error (to be able to get it I even reduced the
speed of the CPU using the PLL jumpers).
The problem was:
The reception packets are handled in the interrupt handler:
mpc52xx_fec_rx_interrupt. So this interrupt is being handled all the
time because we are receiving packets continuously.
The reception fifo errors are handled in the interrupt handler:
mpc52xx_fec_interrupt. This interruption is being handled very often
because we are receiving more packets that what we can handle, and that
generates a fifo reception error.
So it is very usual that the mpc52xx_fec_interrupt handler is executed
at the middle of the mpc52xx_fec_rx_interrupt handler. And I think that
it is not designed for that purpose.
The mpc52xx_fec_rx_interrupt uses bcom_retrieve_buffer and
bcom_submit_next_buffer. The mpc52xx_fec_interrupt calls to
mpc52xx_fec_reset which calls to mpc52xx_fec_free_rx_buffers and
mpc52xx_fec_alloc_rx_buffers, which at the end call bcom_retrieve_buffer
and bcom_submit_next_buffer.
Then we have two problems because of the same origin:
- bcom_retrieve_buffer and bcom_submit_next_buffer doesn't seem to be
atomic, so they cannot be called from one interrupt nested from
another one being executing those functions.
- Even if they were atomic, the mpc52xx_fec_rx_interrupt and the
mpc52xx_fec_reset functions are not intended to be called at the
same time.
Patch I managed to do:
I've managed to perform a patch that avoids the leak disabling the
irqs, but I have a remaining problem: The last packet to be transmited
is waiting for a packet to be received in order to egress (I don't know
why but I detected it experimentaly).
=20
Anyone with more experience can tell me what's wrong in this patch?
Thank you in advance,
Asier
Signed-off-by: Asier Llano <a.llano@ziv.es>
---
drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -urpN linux-2.6.31.2/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c
linux-2.6.31.2-fec_mpc52xx_skb_leak/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--- linux-2.6.31.2/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c
+++ linux-2.6.31.2-fec_mpc52xx_skb_leak/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c
@@ -85,13 +85,20 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug, "debugging messa
=20
static void mpc52xx_fec_tx_timeout(struct net_device *dev)
{
+ struct mpc52xx_fec_priv *priv =3D netdev_priv(dev);
+ unsigned long flags;
+
dev_warn(&dev->dev, "transmit timed out\n");
=20
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
+
mpc52xx_fec_reset(dev);
=20
dev->stats.tx_errors++;
=20
netif_wake_queue(dev);
+
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
}
=20
static void mpc52xx_fec_set_paddr(struct net_device *dev, u8 *mac)
@@ -359,8 +366,9 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc52xx_fec_tx_interr
{
struct net_device *dev =3D dev_id;
struct mpc52xx_fec_priv *priv =3D netdev_priv(dev);
+ unsigned long flags;
=20
- spin_lock(&priv->lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
=20
while (bcom_buffer_done(priv->tx_dmatsk)) {
struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -375,7 +383,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc52xx_fec_tx_interr
=20
netif_wake_queue(dev);
=20
- spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
=20
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
@@ -384,6 +392,9 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc52xx_fec_rx_interr
{
struct net_device *dev =3D dev_id;
struct mpc52xx_fec_priv *priv =3D netdev_priv(dev);
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
=20
while (bcom_buffer_done(priv->rx_dmatsk)) {
struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -445,6 +456,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc52xx_fec_rx_interr
bcom_submit_next_buffer(priv->rx_dmatsk, skb);
}
=20
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
+
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
=20
@@ -454,6 +467,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc52xx_fec_interrupt
struct mpc52xx_fec_priv *priv =3D netdev_priv(dev);
struct mpc52xx_fec __iomem *fec =3D priv->fec;
u32 ievent;
+ unsigned long flags;
=20
ievent =3D in_be32(&fec->ievent);
=20
@@ -471,9 +485,14 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc52xx_fec_interrupt
if (net_ratelimit() && (ievent & FEC_IEVENT_XFIFO_ERROR))
dev_warn(&dev->dev, "FEC_IEVENT_XFIFO_ERROR\n");
=20
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
+
mpc52xx_fec_reset(dev);
=20
netif_wake_queue(dev);
+
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
+
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}=20
=20
----------------------------------------- PLEASE NOTE =
-------------------------------------------
This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally =
privileged.=20
It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are the only =
authorized recipients.
If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without =
review and notify the sender immediately.
Thank you for your help.
ZIV uses virus scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses =
contained in any attachment.
=20
------------------------------------ ROGAMOS LEA ESTE TEXTO =
-------------------------------
Este mensaje y sus anexos pueden contener informaci=F3n confidencial y/o =
con derecho legal.=20
Est=E1 dirigido =FAnicamente a la/s persona/s o entidad/es rese=F1adas =
como =FAnico destinatario autorizado.
Si este mensaje le hubiera llegado por error, por favor elim=EDnelo sin =
revisarlo ni reenviarlo y notif=EDquelo inmediatamente al remitente. =
Gracias por su colaboraci=F3n. =20
ZIV utiliza software antivirus, pero no se hace responsable de los virus =
contenidos en los ficheros anexos.
next reply other threads:[~2009-10-16 11:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-16 11:51 Asier Llano Palacios [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-10-16 12:01 [PATCH] Found skb leak in mpc5200 fec on rxfifo error Asier Llano Palacios
2009-10-16 16:10 ` Asier Llano Palacios
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=1255693910.4683.161.camel@allano \
--to=a.llano@ziv.es \
--cc=a.arzuaga@ziv.es \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).