6.7-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 6442d79d880cf7a2fff18779265d657fef0cce4c ]
fw_devlink can detect most overlapping/intersecting cycles. However it was
missing a few corner cases because of an incorrect optimization logic that
tries to avoid repeating cycle detection for devices that are already
marked as part of a cycle.
Here's an example provided by Xu Yang (edited for clarity):
usb
+-----+
tcpc | |
+-----+ | +--|
| |----------->|EP|
|--+ | | +--|
|EP|<-----------| |
|--+ | | B |
| | +-----+
| A | |
+-----+ |
^ +-----+ |
| | | |
+-----| C |<--+
| |
+-----+
usb-phy
Node A (tcpc) will be populated as device 1-0050.
Node B (usb) will be populated as device 38100000.usb.
Node C (usb-phy) will be populated as device 381f0040.usb-phy.
The description below uses the notation:
consumer --> supplier
child ==> parent
1. Node C is populated as device C. No cycles detected because cycle
detection is only run when a fwnode link is converted to a device link.
2. Node B is populated as device B. As we convert B --> C into a device
link we run cycle detection and find and mark the device link/fwnode
link cycle:
C--> A --> B.EP ==> B --> C
3. Node A is populated as device A. As we convert C --> A into a device
link, we see it's already part of a cycle (from step 2) and don't run
cycle detection. Thus we miss detecting the cycle:
A --> B.EP ==> B --> A.EP ==> A
Looking at it another way, A depends on B in one way:
A --> B.EP ==> B
But B depends on A in two ways and we only detect the first:
B --> C --> A
B --> A.EP ==> A
To detect both of these, we remove the incorrect optimization attempt in
step 3 and run cycle detection even if the fwnode link from which the
device link is being created has already been marked as part of a cycle.
Reported-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@xxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/DU2PR04MB8822693748725F85DC0CB86C8C792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Fixes: 3fb16866b51d ("driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust")
Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@xxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240202095636.868578-3-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/base/core.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index c18c7d4c6971..f9fb69249110 100644
--- a/drivers/base/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -2060,9 +2060,14 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
/*
* SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links don't block probing and supports cycles.
- * So cycle detection isn't necessary and shouldn't be done.
+ * So, one might expect that cycle detection isn't necessary for them.
+ * However, if the device link was marked as SYNC_STATE_ONLY because
+ * it's part of a cycle, then we still need to do cycle detection. This
+ * is because the consumer and supplier might be part of multiple cycles
+ * and we need to detect all those cycles.
*/
- if (!(flags & DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY)) {
+ if (!device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(flags) ||
+ flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE) {
device_links_write_lock();
if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, sup_handle)) {
__fwnode_link_cycle(link);
--
2.43.0
