On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 06:58:23AM +0000, Chugh, Sanjeev wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:46 PM > > To: Chugh, Sanjeev <Sanjeev_Chugh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/1] usb: hub: introduce delay after usb hub mutex > > release > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:54:06AM +0000, Chugh, Sanjeev wrote: > > > Hello Greg, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 6:22 PM > > > > To: Chugh, Sanjeev <Sanjeev_Chugh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/1] usb: hub: introduce delay after usb hub > > > > mutex release > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 06:28:08AM +0530, Sanjeev Chugh wrote: > > > > > Rogue usb sticks can cause endless port connect change events due > > > > > to unstable electric connection between usb chip and the port. > > > > > Port connect change will cause device enumeration for the new > > > > > device connection and new device processing is done with the usb > > > > > hub mutex acquired. This can cause very short time gap between > > > > > unlock/lock of hub device mutex. So if some thread is running at > > > > > low priority than hub_thread, it can face hub device mutex starvation. > > > > > > > > > > This commit introduces a sleep of 25ms after the hub device mutex > > > > > is unlocked in hub_events so that if hub_thread is stuck in a > > > > > endless loop, all other threads will get fair amount of chance to > > > > > acquire the usb hub mutex. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Chugh <sanjeev_chugh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/usb/core/hub.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c index > > > > > 00070a8..0be2acc 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c > > > > > @@ -5763,6 +5763,17 @@ static void hub_event(struct work_struct > > > > > *work) > > > > > out_hdev_lock: > > > > > usb_unlock_device(hdev); > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * Rogue usb sticks can cause endless device connection > > > > > + * events due to unstable electric connection. > > > > > > > > What is a "usb stick"? Any usb device could cause this, right? > > > > > > In my test case, I have used a usb pen drive of Sandisk Make of 32 GB capacity. > > But yes, any faulty usb device or even faulty usb cable used for the usb device > > connection can cause this issue. > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > + * can cause very short time gap between unlock/lock > > > > > + * of hub device mutex thus causing mutex starvation > > > > > + * for some other lower priority thread. Thus sleep > > > > > + * would give fair chance to all other threads to > > > > > + * acquire the usb hub mutex. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + msleep(25); > > > > > > > > What normal code path did you just slow down here? Why not slow > > > > down the disconnect path instead of the connect path? > > > > > > > In case of faulty usb device, USB device enumeration doesn't succeed at all > > and comes out of hub_port_init() from a failure path. There is no device > > disconnection path in this flow. Therefore, this delay is added after > > hub_port_connect_change() is done trying to handle the port connect change > > event. > > > > So you are going to slow down all valid devices just to handle the fact that an > > abusive device can cause the system to slow down? > > > > What exactly is the problem if you plug in an abusive device, that you are trying > > to solve? > > My apologies for not explaining the impact of failure at first place itself. > > Our end product is a car radio. If a faulty usb device(pen drive) is connected to the radio system, unstable electric connection between the usb device and the usb hub port can lead to endless port connect change events notified to the EHCI controller. Thus hub_event() is forced to process all the connection change events with hub device mutex lock acquired in the beginning of the function and released only after event is processed. On every attempt, hub_port_init() fails with usb commands timing out. E.g. > > [ 226.854368] usb 1-1.3: new high-speed USB device number 7 using ci_hdrc > [ 231.934052] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 247.124276] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 247.494572] usb 1-1.3: new high-speed USB device number 9 using ci_hdrc > [ 252.574226] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 267.764276] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 268.134641] usb 1-1.3: new high-speed USB device number 11 using ci_hdrc > [ 273.214691] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 288.404281] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 288.777986] usb 1-1.3: new high-speed USB device number 13 using ci_hdrc > [ 293.857331] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 309.044488] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > [ 309.414428] usb 1-1.3: new high-speed USB device number 15 using ci_hdrc > [ 314.494496] usb 1-1.3: device descriptor read/64, error -110 > > This goes on and on. You have plenty of time between those events (seconds), so why will a 25msec sleep help out here? > Due to quick and endless number of new connection change events, thread running hub_event() function remains busy processing the hub port change events and being frequently scheduled. During this time, any other threads (either low priority or even equal priority) are starved of the hub device mutex. > > Since threads waiting for the hub device mutex lock are in uninterruptible sleep, this leads to kernel hung task detector triggering hung task after 180(hung_task_timeout_secs) seconds of threads waiting for the hub device mutex. And since we have hung_task_panic set to 1, it leads to kernel panic. > > We can reproduce this issue always with a faulty usb device that is capable of sending endless connect status change events due to unstable electric connection between usb device and the hub port. > > > Is the system still supposed to be running properly? Why not just > > remove the device or disable the port when detected? > > > > I hope you would agree that user of an embedded Linux based product is not always expected to remove the faulty usb device before hung task is triggered. I mean, user just simply won't know. > > If we have to make a decision on disabling the port, we must know for sure that same usb device is being attempted for enumeration. Let say, we want to make a decision to abort enumeration after certain number of re-tries. But for that, how would we know that new port connect change event is for the same usb device that was tried last time ? Because since hub_port_init() function itself fails and till this point, we don't have unique information about the usb device being attached to the hub port that we can compare to know if it's a re-try for the same usb device or it's a new usb device. I agree, trying to do this type of detection would be hard, but again, as your log points out, you have seconds between events, so why is your change helping? And again, you are hurting valid devices here by slowing everything down, why not just delay when a disconnect happens? Or just allow the cpu to reschedule? Why did you pick "25" for this magic value? thanks, greg k-h
