Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: move link_ready out of HPD event thread

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 09:30:57AM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 8:38 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:24:08AM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:

> > Perhaps I'm missing something in the race that you are trying to
> > describe (and which I've asked you to describe in more detail so that I
> > don't have to spend more time trying to come up with a reproducer
> > myself).

> The race condition is between the time we get disconnect event and set 
> link_ready to false, a commit can come in. Because setting link_ready to 
> false happens in the event thread so it could be slightly delayed.

I get this part, just not why, or rather when, that becomes a problem.

Once the disconnect event is processed, dp_hpd_unplug_handle() will
update the state to ST_DISCONNECT_PENDING, and queue a notification
event. link_ready is (before this patch) still set to 1.

Here a commit comes in; what exactly are you suggesting would trigger
that? And in such a way that it breaks the state machine?

One way this could cause trouble is if you end up with a call to
dp_bridge_atomic_post_disable() which updates the state to

This would then need to be followed by another call to
dp_bridge_atomic_enable() which bails out early with the link clock
disabled. (2) (And if link_ready were to be set to 0 sooner, the
likelihood of this is reduced.)

This in turn, would trigger a reset when dp_bridge_atomic_disable() is
later called.

This is the kind of description of the race I expect to see in the
commit message, and I'm still not sure what would trigger the call to
dp_bridge_atomic_post_disable() and dp_bridge_atomic_enable() (i.e. (1)
and (2) above) and whether this is a real issue or not.

Also note that the above scenario is quite different from the one I've
hit and described earlier.

> It will be hard to reproduce this. Only way I can think of is to delay 
> the EV_NOTIFICATION for sometime and see in dp_bridge_hpd_notify()
>          else if (dp_display->link_ready && status == 
> connector_status_disconnected)
>                  dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_UNPLUG_INT, 0, 0);
> as dp_add_event() will add the event, then wakeup the event_q.

Sure that would increase the race window with the current code, but that
alone isn't enough to trigger the bug AFAICT.

> Before the event thread wakes up and processes this unplug event, the 
> commit can come in. This is the race condition i was thinking of.

Yes, but what triggers the commit? And why would it lead to a mode set
that disables the bridge?

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux