On 9/24/2023 9:10 PM, Qiang Yu wrote:
On 9/22/2023 10:44 PM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
On 9/13/2023 2:47 AM, Qiang Yu wrote:
From: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Protect WP accesses such that multiple threads queueing buffers for
incoming data do not race and access the same WP twice. Ensure read and
write locks for the channel are not taken in succession by dropping the
read lock from parse_xfer_event() such that a callback given to client
can potentially queue buffers and acquire the write lock in that
process.
Any queueing of buffers should be done without channel read lock
acquired
as it can result in multiple locks and a soft lockup.
Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
index dcf627b..13c4b89 100644
--- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
+++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
@@ -642,6 +642,7 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller
*mhi_cntrl,
mhi_del_ring_element(mhi_cntrl, tre_ring);
local_rp = tre_ring->rp;
+ read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock);
This doesn't work due to the write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock,
flags); on line 591.
Write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags) is used in case of ev_code >=
MHI_EV_CC_OOB. We only read_lock/read_unlock the mhi_chan while ev_code
< MHI_EV_CC_OOB.
Sorry. OOB != EOB
I really don't like that we are unlocking the mhi_chan while still
using it. It opens up a window where the mhi_chan state can be
updated between here and the client using the callback to queue a buf.
Perhaps we need a new lock that just protects the wp, and needs to be
only grabbed while mhi_chan->lock is held?
Since we have employed mhi_chan lock to protect the channel and what we
are concerned here is that client may queue buf to a disabled or stopped
channel, can we check channel state after getting mhi_chan->lock like
line 595.
We can add the check after getting write lock in mhi_gen_tre() and after
getting read lock again here.
I'm not sure that is sufficient. After you unlock to notify the client,
MHI is going to manipulate the packet count and runtime_pm without the
lock (648-652). It seems like that adds additional races which won't be
covered by the additional check you propose.
/* notify client */
mhi_chan->xfer_cb(mhi_chan->mhi_dev, &result);
@@ -667,6 +668,7 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct
mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
kfree(buf_info->cb_buf);
}
}
+ read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock);
}
break;
} /* CC_EOT */
@@ -1204,6 +1206,9 @@ int mhi_gen_tre(struct mhi_controller
*mhi_cntrl, struct mhi_chan *mhi_chan,
int eot, eob, chain, bei;
int ret;
+ /* Protect accesses for reading and incrementing WP */
+ write_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock);
+
buf_ring = &mhi_chan->buf_ring;
tre_ring = &mhi_chan->tre_ring;
@@ -1221,8 +1226,10 @@ int mhi_gen_tre(struct mhi_controller
*mhi_cntrl, struct mhi_chan *mhi_chan,
if (!info->pre_mapped) {
ret = mhi_cntrl->map_single(mhi_cntrl, buf_info);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret) {
+ write_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock);
return ret;
+ }
}
eob = !!(flags & MHI_EOB);
@@ -1239,6 +1246,8 @@ int mhi_gen_tre(struct mhi_controller
*mhi_cntrl, struct mhi_chan *mhi_chan,
mhi_add_ring_element(mhi_cntrl, tre_ring);
mhi_add_ring_element(mhi_cntrl, buf_ring);
+ write_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock);
+
return 0;
}
