Hi,
On 16 January 2017 at 18:56, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> When handing the SETUP packet by composite_setup(), we will release the
>> dwc->lock. If we get the 'USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS' result from setup
>> function, which means we need to delay handling the STATUS phase.
>
> this sentence needs a little work. Seems like it's missing some
> information.
>
> anyway, I get that we release the lock but...
>
>> But during the lock release period, maybe the request for handling delay
>
> execution of ->setup() itself should be locked. I can see that it's only
> locked for set_config() which is rather peculiar.
>
> What exact request you had when you triggered this? (Hint: dwc3
> tracepoints print out ctrl request bytes). IIRC, only set_config() or
> f->set_alt() can actually return USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS.
Yes, when host set configuration for mass storage driver, it can
produce this issue.
>
> Which gadget driver were you using when you triggered this?
mass storage driver. When host issues the setting config request, we
will get USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS result from
set_config()--->fsg_set_alt(). Then the mass storage driver will issue
one thread to complete the status stage by ep0_queue() (this thread
may be running on another core), then if the thread issues ep0_queue()
too fast before we get the dwc->lock in dwc3_ep0_delegate_req() or
before we get into the STATUS stage, then we can not handle this
request for the delay STATUS stage in dwc3_gadget_ep0_queue().
>
> Another point here is that the really robust way of fixing this is to
> get rid of USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS altogether and just make sure
> gadget drivers know how to queue requests for all three phases of a
> Control Transfer.
>
> A lot of code will be removed from all gadget drivers and UDC drivers
> while combining all of it in a single place in composite.c.
>
> The reason I'm saying this is that other UDC drivers might have similar
> races already but they just haven't triggered.
Yes, maybe.
>
>> STATUS phase has been queued into list before we set 'dwc->delayed_status'
>> flag or entering 'EP0_STATUS_PHASE' phase, then we will miss the chance
>> to handle the STATUS phase. Thus we should check if the request for delay
>> STATUS phase has been enqueued when entering 'EP0_STATUS_PHASE' phase in
>> dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(), if so, we should handle it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> index 9bb1f85..e689ced 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> @@ -1123,7 +1123,21 @@ static void dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(struct dwc3 *dwc,
>> dwc->ep0state = EP0_STATUS_PHASE;
>>
>> if (dwc->delayed_status) {
>> + struct dwc3_ep *dep = dwc->eps[0];
>> +
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(event->endpoint_number != 1);
>> + /*
>> + * We should handle the delay STATUS phase here if the
>> + * request for handling delay STATUS has been queued
>> + * into the list.
>> + */
>> + if (!list_empty(&dep->pending_list)) {
>> + dwc->delayed_status = false;
>> + usb_gadget_set_state(&dwc->gadget,
>> + USB_STATE_CONFIGURED);
>
> Isn't this patch also changing the normal case when usb_ep_queue() comes
> later? I guess list_empty() protects against that...
I think it will not change other cases, we only handle the delayed
status and I've tested it for a while and I did not find any problem.
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
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
