From: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@anirudhrb.com> To: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@gmail.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@anirudhrb.com>, syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v2] usbip: give back URBs for unsent unlink requests during cleanup Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 23:43:35 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210806181335.2078-1-mail@anirudhrb.com> (raw) In vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(), the URBs for unsent unlink requests are not given back. This sometimes causes usb_kill_urb to wait indefinitely for that urb to be given back. syzbot has reported a hung task issue [1] for this. To fix this, give back the urbs corresponding to unsent unlink requests (unlink_tx list) similar to how urbs corresponding to unanswered unlink requests (unlink_rx list) are given back. Since the code is almost the same, extract it into a new function and call it for both unlink_rx and unlink_tx lists. [1]: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=08f12df95ae7da69814e64eb5515d5a85ed06b76 Reported-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Tested-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@anirudhrb.com> --- Changes in v2: Use WARN_ON() instead of BUG() when unlink_list is neither unlink_tx nor unlink_rx. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210806164015.25263-1-mail@anirudhrb.com/ --- drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c index 4ba6bcdaa8e9..67e638f4c455 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c +++ b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c @@ -945,7 +945,8 @@ static int vhci_urb_dequeue(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb, int status) return 0; } -static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) +static void __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(struct vhci_device *vdev, + struct list_head *unlink_list) { struct vhci_hcd *vhci_hcd = vdev_to_vhci_hcd(vdev); struct usb_hcd *hcd = vhci_hcd_to_hcd(vhci_hcd); @@ -953,23 +954,23 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) struct vhci_unlink *unlink, *tmp; unsigned long flags; + if (WARN(unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_tx + && unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_rx, + "Invalid list passed to __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list\n")) + return; + spin_lock_irqsave(&vhci->lock, flags); spin_lock(&vdev->priv_lock); - list_for_each_entry_safe(unlink, tmp, &vdev->unlink_tx, list) { - pr_info("unlink cleanup tx %lu\n", unlink->unlink_seqnum); - list_del(&unlink->list); - kfree(unlink); - } - - while (!list_empty(&vdev->unlink_rx)) { + list_for_each_entry_safe(unlink, tmp, unlink_list, list) { struct urb *urb; - unlink = list_first_entry(&vdev->unlink_rx, struct vhci_unlink, - list); - - /* give back URB of unanswered unlink request */ - pr_info("unlink cleanup rx %lu\n", unlink->unlink_seqnum); + if (unlink_list == &vdev->unlink_tx) + pr_info("unlink cleanup tx %lu\n", + unlink->unlink_seqnum); + else + pr_info("unlink cleanup rx %lu\n", + unlink->unlink_seqnum); urb = pickup_urb_and_free_priv(vdev, unlink->unlink_seqnum); if (!urb) { @@ -1001,6 +1002,24 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vhci->lock, flags); } +static inline void vhci_cleanup_unlink_tx(struct vhci_device *vdev) +{ + __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(vdev, &vdev->unlink_tx); +} + +static inline void vhci_cleanup_unlink_rx(struct vhci_device *vdev) +{ + __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(vdev, &vdev->unlink_rx); +} + +static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) +{ + /* give back URBs of unsent unlink requests */ + vhci_cleanup_unlink_tx(vdev); + /* give back URBs of unanswered unlink requests */ + vhci_cleanup_unlink_rx(vdev); +} + /* * The important thing is that only one context begins cleanup. * This is why error handling and cleanup become simple. -- 2.26.2
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@anirudhrb.com> To: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@gmail.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Subject: [PATCH v2] usbip: give back URBs for unsent unlink requests during cleanup Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 23:43:35 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210806181335.2078-1-mail@anirudhrb.com> (raw) In vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(), the URBs for unsent unlink requests are not given back. This sometimes causes usb_kill_urb to wait indefinitely for that urb to be given back. syzbot has reported a hung task issue [1] for this. To fix this, give back the urbs corresponding to unsent unlink requests (unlink_tx list) similar to how urbs corresponding to unanswered unlink requests (unlink_rx list) are given back. Since the code is almost the same, extract it into a new function and call it for both unlink_rx and unlink_tx lists. [1]: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=08f12df95ae7da69814e64eb5515d5a85ed06b76 Reported-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Tested-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@anirudhrb.com> --- Changes in v2: Use WARN_ON() instead of BUG() when unlink_list is neither unlink_tx nor unlink_rx. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210806164015.25263-1-mail@anirudhrb.com/ --- drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c index 4ba6bcdaa8e9..67e638f4c455 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c +++ b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c @@ -945,7 +945,8 @@ static int vhci_urb_dequeue(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb, int status) return 0; } -static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) +static void __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(struct vhci_device *vdev, + struct list_head *unlink_list) { struct vhci_hcd *vhci_hcd = vdev_to_vhci_hcd(vdev); struct usb_hcd *hcd = vhci_hcd_to_hcd(vhci_hcd); @@ -953,23 +954,23 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) struct vhci_unlink *unlink, *tmp; unsigned long flags; + if (WARN(unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_tx + && unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_rx, + "Invalid list passed to __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list\n")) + return; + spin_lock_irqsave(&vhci->lock, flags); spin_lock(&vdev->priv_lock); - list_for_each_entry_safe(unlink, tmp, &vdev->unlink_tx, list) { - pr_info("unlink cleanup tx %lu\n", unlink->unlink_seqnum); - list_del(&unlink->list); - kfree(unlink); - } - - while (!list_empty(&vdev->unlink_rx)) { + list_for_each_entry_safe(unlink, tmp, unlink_list, list) { struct urb *urb; - unlink = list_first_entry(&vdev->unlink_rx, struct vhci_unlink, - list); - - /* give back URB of unanswered unlink request */ - pr_info("unlink cleanup rx %lu\n", unlink->unlink_seqnum); + if (unlink_list == &vdev->unlink_tx) + pr_info("unlink cleanup tx %lu\n", + unlink->unlink_seqnum); + else + pr_info("unlink cleanup rx %lu\n", + unlink->unlink_seqnum); urb = pickup_urb_and_free_priv(vdev, unlink->unlink_seqnum); if (!urb) { @@ -1001,6 +1002,24 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vhci->lock, flags); } +static inline void vhci_cleanup_unlink_tx(struct vhci_device *vdev) +{ + __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(vdev, &vdev->unlink_tx); +} + +static inline void vhci_cleanup_unlink_rx(struct vhci_device *vdev) +{ + __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(vdev, &vdev->unlink_rx); +} + +static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev) +{ + /* give back URBs of unsent unlink requests */ + vhci_cleanup_unlink_tx(vdev); + /* give back URBs of unanswered unlink requests */ + vhci_cleanup_unlink_rx(vdev); +} + /* * The important thing is that only one context begins cleanup. * This is why error handling and cleanup become simple. -- 2.26.2 _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees
next reply other threads:[~2021-08-06 18:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-06 18:13 Anirudh Rayabharam [this message] 2021-08-06 18:13 ` [PATCH v2] usbip: give back URBs for unsent unlink requests during cleanup Anirudh Rayabharam 2021-08-10 23:25 ` Shuah Khan 2021-08-10 23:25 ` Shuah Khan 2021-08-11 13:58 ` Anirudh Rayabharam 2021-08-11 13:58 ` Anirudh Rayabharam 2021-08-11 21:51 ` Shuah Khan 2021-08-11 21:51 ` Shuah Khan
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20210806181335.2078-1-mail@anirudhrb.com \ --to=mail@anirudhrb.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=shuah@kernel.org \ --cc=syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \ --cc=valentina.manea.m@gmail.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.