On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:49:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:44:25AM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Introducing usb_for_each_port(). It works the same way as
> > usb_for_each_dev(), but instead of going through every USB
> > device in the system, it walks through the USB ports in the
> > system.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/core/usb.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/usb.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/usb.c b/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
> > index 2ce3667ec6fae..62368c4ed37af 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
> > @@ -398,6 +398,52 @@ int usb_for_each_dev(void *data, int (*fn)(struct usb_device *, void *))
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_for_each_dev);
> >
> > +struct each_hub_arg {
> > + void *data;
> > + int (*fn)(struct device *, void *);
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int __each_hub(struct usb_device *hdev, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct each_hub_arg *arg = (struct each_hub_arg *)data;
> > + struct usb_hub *hub;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + hub = usb_hub_to_struct_hub(hdev);
> > + if (!hub)
> > + return 0;
>
> What happens if the hub is removed exactly now? Although hdev is
> reference-counted (and the loop iterator does take a reference to it),
> usb_hub_to_struct_hub doesn't take a reference to hub. And hub->ports
> isn't refcounted at all.
If the hub is removed right now, and if hub_disconnect() also manages
to remove the ports before we have time to take the lock below, then
hdev->maxchild will be 0 by the time we can take the lock. In that
case nothing happens here.
If on the other hand we manage to acquire the usb_port_peer_mutex
before hub_disconnect(), then hub_disconnect() will simply have to
wait until we are done, and only after that remove the ports.
> > + mutex_lock(&usb_port_peer_mutex);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < hdev->maxchild; i++) {
> > + ret = arg->fn(&hub->ports[i]->dev, arg->data);
> > + if (ret)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&usb_port_peer_mutex);
>
> I have a feeling that it would be better to take and release this mutex
> in usb_for_each_port (or its caller), so that it is held over the whole
> loop.
I disagree. The lock is for the ports, not the hubs. We should take
the lock when we are going through the ports of a hub, but release it
between the hubs. Otherwise we will be only keeping things on hold for
a long period of time for no good reason (I for example have to
evaluate the _PLD of every single port which takes a lot of time). We
don't need to prevent other things from happening to the hubs at the
same time.
thanks,
--
heikki
