> No blank line after cc: stable, and put the fixes above your
signed-off-by line please.
Fixed all commit message related concerns.
> Why a global lock? Shouldn't this be a per-device lock?
Ack ! Addressed this in V2.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:29 PM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:31:32AM +0000, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > usb_udc_connect_control does not check to see if the udc
> > has already been started. This causes gadget->ops->pullup
> > to be called through usb_gadget_connect when invoked
> > from usb_udc_vbus_handler even before usb_gadget_udc_start
> > is called. Guard this by checking for udc->started in
> > usb_udc_connect_control before invoking usb_gadget_connect.
> >
> > Guarding udc_connect_control, udc->started and udc->vbus
> > with its own mutex as usb_udc_connect_control_locked
> > can be simulataneously invoked from different code paths.
> >
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 628ef0d273a6 ("usb: udc: add usb_udc_vbus_handler")
>
> There's a problem with this patch.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c
> > index 3dcbba739db6..890f92cb6344 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c
>
> > @@ -1140,14 +1145,18 @@ static inline int usb_gadget_udc_start(struct usb_udc *udc)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&udc_connect_control_lock);
> > if (udc->started) {
> > dev_err(&udc->dev, "UDC had already started\n");
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_connect_control_lock);
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> >
> > ret = udc->gadget->ops->udc_start(udc->gadget, udc->driver);
> > if (!ret)
> > udc->started = true;
> > + usb_udc_connect_control_locked(udc);
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_connect_control_lock);
>
> You moved the connect_control call up here, into usb_gadget_udc_start().
Have moved it back into gadget_bind_driver.
>
> > return ret;
> > }
> > @@ -1165,13 +1174,17 @@ static inline int usb_gadget_udc_start(struct usb_udc *udc)
> > */
> > static inline void usb_gadget_udc_stop(struct usb_udc *udc)
> > {
> > + mutex_lock(&udc_connect_control_lock);
> > if (!udc->started) {
> > dev_err(&udc->dev, "UDC had already stopped\n");
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_connect_control_lock);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > udc->gadget->ops->udc_stop(udc->gadget);
> > udc->started = false;
> > + usb_udc_connect_control_locked(udc);
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_connect_control_lock);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -1527,7 +1540,6 @@ static int gadget_bind_driver(struct device *dev)
> > if (ret)
> > goto err_start;
> > usb_gadget_enable_async_callbacks(udc);
> > - usb_udc_connect_control(udc);
>
> This is where it used to be.
>
> The problem is that in the gadget_bind_driver pathway,
> usb_gadget_enable_async_callbacks() has to run _before_ the gadget
> connects. Maybe you can fix this by leaving the function call in its
> original location and protecting it with the new mutex?
>
> There may be a similar problem with disconnecting and the
> gadget_unbind_driver pathway (usb_gadget_disable_async_callbacks() has to
> run _after_ the disconnect occurs). I haven't tried to follow the patch
> in enough detail to see whether that's an issue.
Thanks for explaining what's the expectation here. I have incorporated
the feedback in v2.
The new lock now additionally guards gadget->connect and gadget->deactivate as
well. Guarding all with the new lock as they are related to one another.
I have made sure that the gadget_bind_driver and gadget_unbind_driver
sequence remains unaltered.
>
> Alan Stern
>
> >
> > kobject_uevent(&udc->dev.kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE);
> > return 0;
> >
> > base-commit: d629c0e221cd99198b843d8351a0a9bfec6c0423
> > --
> > 2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog
> >
