On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:05 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:14:45PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > With commit 216b44000ada ("brcmfmac: Fix use after free in > > > brcmf_sdio_readframes()") applied, we see locking timeouts in > > > brcmf_sdio_watchdog_thread(). > > > > > > brcmfmac: brcmf_escan_timeout: timer expired > > > INFO: task brcmf_wdog/mmc1:621 blocked for more than 120 seconds. > > > Not tainted 4.19.94-07984-g24ff99a0f713 #1 > > > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > > brcmf_wdog/mmc1 D 0 621 2 0x00000000 last_sleep: 2440793077. last_runnable: 2440766827 > > > [<c0aa1e60>] (__schedule) from [<c0aa2100>] (schedule+0x98/0xc4) > > > [<c0aa2100>] (schedule) from [<c0853830>] (__mmc_claim_host+0x154/0x274) > > > [<c0853830>] (__mmc_claim_host) from [<bf10c5b8>] (brcmf_sdio_watchdog_thread+0x1b0/0x1f8 [brcmfmac]) > > > [<bf10c5b8>] (brcmf_sdio_watchdog_thread [brcmfmac]) from [<c02570b8>] (kthread+0x178/0x180) > > > > > > In addition to restarting or exiting the loop, it is also necessary to > > > abort the command and to release the host. > > > > > > Fixes: 216b44000ada ("brcmfmac: Fix use after free in brcmf_sdio_readframes()") > > > Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > > > index f9df95bc7fa1..2e1c23c7269d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > > > @@ -1938,6 +1938,8 @@ static uint brcmf_sdio_readframes(struct brcmf_sdio *bus, uint maxframes) > > > if (brcmf_sdio_hdparse(bus, bus->rxhdr, &rd_new, > > > BRCMF_SDIO_FT_NORMAL)) { > > > rd->len = 0; > > > + brcmf_sdio_rxfail(bus, true, true); > > > + sdio_release_host(bus->sdiodev->func1); > > > > I don't know much about this driver so I don't personally know if > > "true, true" is the correct thing to pass to brcmf_sdio_rxfail(), but > > it seems plausible. Definitely the fix to call sdio_release_host() is > > sane. > > > > Thus, unless someone knows for sure that brcmf_sdio_rxfail()'s > > parameters should be different: > > > Actually, looking at brcmf_sdio_hdparse() and its other callers, > I think it may not be needed at all - other callers don't do it, and > there already are some calls to brcmf_sdio_rxfail() in that function. > It would be nice though to get a confirmation before I submit v2. I think invoking rxfail with both abort and NACK set to true is the right thing to do here so that the pipeline can be properly purged. Thanks! Acked-by: franky.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx