On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 9:36 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 07:42:39PM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > Thanks again Alan !
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 8:55 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Getting back to your first point, it looks like we need to assume any
> > > routine that needs to communicate with the UDC hardware (such as the
> > > ->pullup callback used in usb_gadget_{dis}connect()) must always be
> > > called in process context. This means that usb_udc_connect_control()
> > > always has to run in process context, since it will do either a connect
> > > or a disconnect.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, some routines -- in particular,
> > > usb_udc_vbus_handler() -- may be called by a UDC driver's interrupt
> > > handler and therefore may run in interrupt context. (This fact should
> > > be noted in that routine's kerneldoc, by the way.)
> > >
> > > So here's the problem: usb_udc_vbus_handler() running in interrupt
> > > context calls usb_udc_connect_control(), which has to run in process
> > > context. And this is not just a simple issue caused by the
> > > ->disconnect() callback or use of mutexes; it's more fundamental.
> > >
> > > I'm led to conclude that you were right to offload part of
> > > usb_udc_vbus_handler()'s job to a workqueue. It's an awkward thing to
> > > do, because you have to make sure to cancel the work item at times when
> > > it's no longer needed. But there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
> > >
> > > Here's two related problems for you to think about:
> > >
> > > 1. Once gadget_unbind_driver() has called usb_gadget_disconnect(),
> > > we don't want a VBUS change to cause usb_udc_vbus_handler()'s
> > > work routine to turn the pullup back on. How can we prevent
> > > this?
> > >
> > > 2. More generally, suppose usb_udc_vbus_handler() gets called at
> > > exactly the same time that some other pathway (either
> > > gadget_bind_driver() or soft_connect_store()) tries to do a
> > > connect or disconnect. What should happen then?
> >
> >
> > I believe I can solve the above races by protecting the flags set by
> > each of them with connect_lock and not pulling up unless all of them
> > are true.
> >
> > The caller will hold connect_lock, update the respective flag and
> > invoke the below usb_gadget_pullup_update_locked function(shown
> > below).
>
> Are you certain this can be done without causing any deadlocks?
>
> > Code stub:
> > /* Internal version of usb_gadget_connect needs to be called with
> > connect_lock held. */
> > static int usb_gadget_pullup_update_locked(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > __must_hold(&gadget->udc->connect_lock)
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> > bool connect = !gadget->deactivated && gadget->udc->started &&
> > gadget->udc->vbus &&
> > gadget->udc->allow_connect;
>
> On further thought, I decided "allow_connect" is a dumb name. Let's
> call it "unbinding" instead, since it gets set only when a gadget driver
> is about to be unbound (which is when we want to prevent new
> connections).
Sure, fixing it in v3.
>
> > if (!gadget->ops->pullup) {
> > ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > if (connect != gadget->connected) {
>
> You need to be more careful here. It's possible to have
> gadget->connected set at the same time as gadget->deactivated -- it
> means that when the gadget gets re-activated, it will immediately try to
> connect again.
>
> In fact, this logic doesn't look right at all. For example, suppose the
> gadget driver wants to disconnect. This routine will compute connect =
> true and will see that gadget->connected is set, so it won't do
> anything!
>
> I think it would be better just to merge the new material into
> usb_gadget_connect() and usb_gadget_disconnect().
I ended up merging them into usb_gadget_pullup_update_locked() so that
each of the individual helper function can call
usb_gadget_pullup_update_locked() while holding the connect_lock. I
actually had usb_gadget_(dis)connect() set udc->vbus. It appears to me
that both usb_gadget_(dis)connect() and usb_udc_vbus_handler() are
meant to be called based on vbus presence and hence seem to be
redundant. Wondering if we could get rid of usb_gadget_(dis)connect()
given that drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c is only call it and
instead make it call usb_udc_vbus_handler() instead ?
>
> > ret = gadget->ops->pullup(gadget, connect);
> > if (!ret)
> > gadget->connected = connect;
> > if (!connect) {
> > mutex_lock(&udc_lock);
> > if (gadget->udc->driver)
> > gadget->udc->driver->disconnect(gadget);
> > mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
> > }
> >
> > out:
> > trace_usb_gadget_connect(gadget, ret);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > However, while auditing the code again, I noticed another potential
> > race as well:
> > Looks like usb_del_gadget() can potentially race against
> > usb_udc_vbus_handler() and call device_unregister.
> > This implies usb_udc can be freed while usb_udc_vbus_handler() or the
> > work item is executing.
> >
> > void usb_del_gadget(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > {
> > struct usb_udc *udc = gadget->udc;
> >
> > ..
> > ...
> > device_unregister(&udc->dev);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_del_gadget);
> >
> > Does this look like a valid concern to you or am I misunderstanding this ?
>
> You're missing an important point. Before doing device_unregister(),
> this routine calls device_del(&gadget->dev). That will unbind the
> gadget driver, which (among other things) will stop the UDC, preventing
> it from calling usb_udc_vbus_handler(). However, you're right that the
> work item will need to be cancelled at some point before the usb_udc is
> unregistered.
>
Sure, thought gadget_unbind_driver() might be a good place to cancel
the work item. So, cancelling it there in V3.
> > If so, I am afraid that the only way to solve this is by synchronizing
> > usb_udc_vbus_handler() against usb_del_gadget() through a mutex as
> > device_unregister() can sleep.
> > So offloading usb_udc_vbus_handler() cannot work either.
> >
> > usb_udc_vbus_hander() seems to be invoked from the following drivers:
> >
> > 1. drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c:
> > usb_udc_vbus_hander() is called from a non-atomic context.
> >
> > 2. drivers/usb/gadget/udc/max3420_udc.c
> > usb_udc_vbus_hander() is called from the interrupt handler.
> > However, all the events are processed from max3420_thread kthread.
> > So I am thinking of making them threaded irq handlers instead.
> >
> > 3. drivers/usb/gadget/udc/renesas_usbf.c
> > This one looks more invasive. However, still attempting to move them
> > to threaded irq handlers.
> >
> > As always, I'm looking forward to your feedback !
>
> Moving those things to threaded IRQ handlers is a separate job. Let's
> get this issue fixed first.
Sounds good !
Thanks,
Badhri
>
> Alan Stern
