Hi Dmitry, On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 04:43:06PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: linux-wireless-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-wireless- > >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Norris > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:00 PM > >> To: Amitkumar Karwar > >> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > >> rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx; Xinming Hu > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during device > >> unregister > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:04:53PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > >> > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 3:28 AM > >> > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > >> > > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > >> > > rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx; briannorris@xxxxxxxxxx; Xinming Hu > >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during > >> > > device unregister > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:38:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > >> > >> > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > >> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > >> > > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > >> > > mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > >> > > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > >> > > > } > >> > > > } > >> > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > >> > > > >> > > I think you have a similar problem here as in patch 2; there is no > >> > > locking to protect fields in struct pcie_service_card or struct > >> > > sdio_mmc_card below. That problem kind of already exists, except > >> > > that you only write the value of card->adapter once at registration > >> > > time, so it's not actually unsafe. But now that you're introducing a > >> > > second write, you have a problem. > >> > > > >> > > Brian > >> > > > >> > > >> > We have a global "add_remove_card_sem" semaphore in our code for > >> > synchronizing initialization and teardown threads. Ideally "init + > >> > teardown/reboot" should not have a race issue with this logic > >> > > >> > Later there was a loophole introduced in this after using async > >> > firmware download API. During initialization, firmware downloads > >> > asynchronously in a separate thread where might have released the > >> > semaphore. I am working on a patch to fix this. > >> > > >> > So "card->adapter" doesn't need to have locking. Even if we have two > >> > write operations, those two threads can't run simultaneously due to > >> > above mentioned logic. > >> > >> What about writes racing with reads? You have lots of unsynchronized > >> cases that read this, although most of them should be halted by now > >> (e.g., cmd processing). I was looking at suspend() in particular, which > >> I thought you were looking at in this patch series. > > > > Please note that "card->adapter" is used only in pcie.c/sdio.c/usb.c files > > > > Writes won't have race with reads. > > > > 1) write 1 --- "card->adapter = adapter;" in mwifiex_register_dev() > > This place is at the beginning of initialization. > > mwifiex_pcie_probe() -> mwifiex_add_card() -> adapter->if_ops.register_dev() > > There is no chance that "card->adapter" is read anywhere at this point. FW is not yet downloaded > > > > 2) write 2 ---- "card->adapter = NULL;" in mwifiex_unregister_dev() > > This place the end of teardown phase. > > Interrupts are disabled and all cleanup is done. We have "card->adapter" NULL checks at entry point of suspend/remove/resume, if they get called after this. > > How exactly are you preventing ->suspend() from being called *while* > you are running mwifiex_unregister_dev()? I.e. user slamming the lid > of a laptop and throwing it in their backpack? As I already commented, isn't this primarily [*] called from the driver remove() callback? remove() doesn't race with suspend(), does it? [*] The other cases are in error handling cases. I guess I should make sure those didn't race too... Brian
