On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:36:24AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Robert Baldyga
> > usb_gadget_disconnect() shouldn't be called under spinlock to avoid
> > spinlock recursion. Function usb_gadget_disconnect() calls pullup(),
> > which is callback from UDC driver, usually calling composite_disconnect().
> > This function wants to lock spinlock used in usb_function_deactivate()
> > causing spinlock recursion.
> ...
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> > @@ -260,8 +260,11 @@ int usb_function_deactivate(struct usb_function *function)
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&cdev->lock, flags);
> >
> > - if (cdev->deactivations == 0)
> > + if (cdev->deactivations == 0) {
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cdev->lock, flags);
> > status = usb_gadget_disconnect(cdev->gadget);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&cdev->lock, flags);
> > + }
> > if (status == 0)
> > cdev->deactivations++;
>
> That sort of change rings big alarm bells.
> You've effectively isolated the usb_gadget_disconnect() call
> from the check that cdev->deactivations == 0.
> And then you increment cdev->deactivations below.
>
> Looks like it will be racy to me.
yes, it will. Fixing this requires a much more involved change.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
