On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 01:55:34PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > On 11.08.2015 11:15, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 16:07 +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > >> From: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> When xhci_mem_cleanup() is called, it's possible that the command > >> timer isn't initialized and scheduled. For those cases, to delete > >> the command timer causes soft-lockup as below stack dump shows. > >> > >> The patch avoids deleting the command timer if it's not scheduled > >> with the help of timer_pending(). > > > > Are you sure this is safe? timer_pending() will not show you that > > the timer function is running. It looks like you introduced a race > > between timeout and cleanup. > > > > Looking at it in more detail you're right. > > Fortunately this can only happen in cases where xhci is already hosed > (no command response for 5 seconds), and we are at the same time > anyway about to remove xhci. > > Doesn't this mean that all cases with > if (timer_pending(&timer)) > del_timer_sync(&timer) > > is just basically the same as a plain del_timer(&timer)? > > Anyways, turns out that the error path in xhci initialization code can end up calling > del_timer_sync() before timer is initialized. This should be fixed by re-arranging > some code in xhci initialization instead. > > Greg, should this be reverted in rc7? > I think that the possible side effect of this patch is still lesser the original > issue. Just fix it "right" in a new patch. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
