On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:39:28PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:51:16PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 20/01/15 07:23, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > > > if(!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...))
> > > > > only handles the timeout case - this patch adds handling the
> > > > > signal case the same as timeout and cleans up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the timeout case was being handled, return of 0 in
> > > > > wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout, the signal case (-ERESTARTSYS)
> > > > > was treated just like the case of successful completion, which is most
> > > > > likely not reasonable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that exynos_mipi_dsi_wr_data/exynos_mipi_dsi_rd_data return values
> > > > > are not checked at the call sites in s6e8ax0.c (cmd_read/cmd_write)!
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch simply treats the signal case the same way as the timeout case,
> > > > > by releasing locks and returning 0 - which might not be the right thing to
> > > > > do - this needs a review by someone knowing the details of this driver.
> > > >
> > > > While I agree that this patch is a bit better than the current state,
> > > > the code still looks wrong as Russell said.
> > > >
> > > > I can merge this, but I'd rather have someone from Samsung look at the
> > > > code and change it to use wait_for_completion_killable_timeout() if
> > > > that's what this code is really supposed to use.
> > > >
> > > If someone that knows the details takes care of it
> > > that is of course the best solution. If someone Samsung is
> > > going to look into it then it is probably best to completly
> > > drop this speculative patch so that this does not lead
> > > to more confusion than it does good.
> >
> > IMHO, just change it to wait_for_completion_killable_timeout() - that's
> > a much better change than the change you're proposing.
> >
> > If we think about it... The current code uses this:
> >
> > if (!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&dsim_wr_comp,
> > MIPI_FIFO_TIMEOUT)) {
> > dev_warn(dsim->dev, "command write timeout.\n");
> > mutex_unlock(&dsim->lock);
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> >
> > which has the effect of treating a signal as "success", and doesn't return
> > an error. So, if the calling application receives (eg) a SIGPIPE or a
> > SIGALRM, we proceed as if we received the FIFO empty interrupt and doesn't
> > cause an error.
> >
> > Your change results in:
> >
> > timeout = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> > &dsim_wr_comp, MIPI_FIFO_TIMEOUT);
> > if (timeout <= 0) {
> > dev_warn(dsim->dev,
> > "command write timed-out/interrupted.\n");
> > mutex_unlock(&dsim->lock);
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> >
> > which now means that this call returns -EAGAIN when a signal is raised.
>
> but in case of wait_for_completion_killable_timeout it also would return
> -ERESTARTSYS (unless I'm missreading do_wait_for_common -> signal_pending_state(state, current)) so I still think it would be better to have the
> dev_warn() in the path and then when the task is killed it atleast leaves
> some trace of the of what was going on ?
>
> >
> > Now, further auditing of this exynos crap (and I really do mean crap)
> > shows that this function is assigned to a method called "cmd_write".
> > Grepping for that shows that *no caller ever checks the return value*!
> >
>
> yup - as was noted in the patch - and this is also why it was
> not really possible to figure out what should really be done
> as it runs into a dead end in all cases - the only point of the patch was
> to atleast generate a debug message and return some signal
> indicating error ... which is then unhandled...
>
> > So, really, there's a bug here in that we should _never_ complete on a
> > signal, and we most *definitely can not* error out on a signal either.
> > The *only* sane change to this code without author/maintainer input is
> > to change this to wait_for_completion_killable_timeout() - so that
> > signals do not cause either premature completion nor premature failure
> > of the wait.
> >
> > The proper fix is absolutely huge: all call paths need to be augmented
> > with code to detect this function failing, and back out whatever changes
> > they've made, and restoring the previous state (if they can) and
> > propagate the error all the way back to userland, so that syscall
> > restarting can work correctly. _Only then_ is it safe to use a call
> > which causes an interruptible sleep.
> >
> > Personally, I'd be happier seeing this moved into drivers/staging and
> > eventually deleted from the kernel unless someone is willing to review
> > the driver and fix some of these glaring problems. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if there was _loads_ of this kind of crap there.
> >
> there is plenty of this - actually all of the wait_for_completion* related
> findings I've been posting in the past 2 month are based on the attempt to
> write up a more or less complete API spec in form of coccinelle scripts that
> then can be used to scan and sometimes fix-up this kind of problems - but of
> course just "local-fixes" - this can't fix fundamentally broken code.
In which case, let me propose that the exynos fbdev driver needs to be
moved to drivers/staging, and stay there until this stuff gets fixed.
drivers/staging is supposed to be for stuff which isn't up to the mark,
and which is potentially unstable. And that's what this driver exactly
is.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
