* [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer @ 2020-04-07 13:55 Dan Carpenter 2020-04-07 14:33 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-21 6:03 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-07 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: manivannan.sadhasivam Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker warning: drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c 1142 } 1143 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); 1146 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); 1149 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { 1151 unsigned long flags; 1152 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The caller is already holding this lock. 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); 1156 } 1157 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); 1159 1160 return 0; 1161 } 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); regards, dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-07 13:55 [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-07 14:33 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-17 3:37 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-21 6:03 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-07 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hi Dan, On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, > > The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data > transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker > warning: > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() > error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > 1142 } > 1143 > 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ > 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); > 1146 > 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) > 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); > 1149 > 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { > 1151 unsigned long flags; > 1152 > 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The caller is already holding this lock. > Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where the locking has gone wrong. Will fix it. Thanks for reporting! Regards, Mani > 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); > 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > 1156 } > 1157 > 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > 1159 > 1160 return 0; > 1161 } > 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); > > regards, > dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-07 14:33 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-17 3:37 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-17 10:14 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Hemant Kumar @ 2020-04-17 3:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manivannan Sadhasivam, Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, >> >> The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data >> transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker >> warning: >> >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() >> error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) >> >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >> 1142 } >> 1143 >> 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ >> 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); >> 1146 >> 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) >> 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); >> 1149 >> 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { >> 1151 unsigned long flags; >> 1152 >> 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first and later mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> The caller is already holding this lock. >> > Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where the locking > has gone wrong. Will fix it. > > Thanks for reporting! > > Regards, > Mani > >> 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); >> 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> 1156 } >> 1157 >> 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); >> 1159 >> 1160 return 0; >> 1161 } >> 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); >> >> regards, >> dan carpenter -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-17 3:37 ` Hemant Kumar @ 2020-04-17 10:14 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-17 10:24 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-04-18 7:10 ` Hemant Kumar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-17 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hemant Kumar; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hi Hemant, On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:37:16PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: > > On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, > > > > > > The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data > > > transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker > > > warning: > > > > > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() > > > error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) > > > > > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > 1142 } > > > 1143 > > > 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ > > > 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); > > > 1146 > > > 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) > > > 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); > > > 1149 > > > 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { > > > 1151 unsigned long flags; > > > 1152 > > > 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first > and later > > mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? > read_locks are recursive but I wanted to make the static checker happy. But looking into it further (and after having a chat with Arnd), we might need to refactor the locking here. Since 'chan->lock' only prevents 'mhi_chan->ch_state', how about doing something like below? diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c index 3e9aa3b2da77..904f9be7a142 100644 --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c @@ -474,19 +474,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, result.transaction_status = (ev_code == MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW) ? -EOVERFLOW : 0; - /* - * If it's a DB Event then we need to grab the lock - * with preemption disabled and as a write because we - * have to update db register and there are chances that - * another thread could be doing the same. - */ - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) - write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); - else - read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); - - if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) - goto end_process_tx_event; + read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); + if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) { + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); + return 0; + } + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); switch (ev_code) { case MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW: @@ -559,10 +552,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1; read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); + write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); if (tre_ring->wp != tre_ring->rp && MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl)) { mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); } + write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); break; } @@ -572,12 +567,6 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, break; } /* switch(MHI_EV_READ_CODE(EV_TRB_CODE,event)) */ -end_process_tx_event: - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) - write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); - else - read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); - return 0; } Moreover, I do have couple of concerns: 1. 'mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1' needs to be added to the critical section above. 2. Why we have {write/read}_lock_irq variants for chan->lock? I don't see where the db or ch_state got shared with hardirq handler. Maybe we should only have *_bh (softirq) variants all over the place? Thanks, Mani > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > The caller is already holding this lock. > > > > > Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where the locking > > has gone wrong. Will fix it. > > > > Thanks for reporting! > > > > Regards, > > Mani > > > > > 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); > > > 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > 1156 } > > > 1157 > > > 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > > > 1159 > > > 1160 return 0; > > > 1161 } > > > 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); > > > > > > regards, > > > dan carpenter > > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-17 10:14 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-17 10:24 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-04-18 7:10 ` Hemant Kumar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-17 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manivannan Sadhasivam; +Cc: Hemant Kumar, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 03:44:28PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Hi Hemant, > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:37:16PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: > > > > On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, > > > > > > > > The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data > > > > transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker > > > > warning: > > > > > > > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() > > > > error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) > > > > > > > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > > 1142 } > > > > 1143 > > > > 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ > > > > 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); > > > > 1146 > > > > 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) > > > > 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); > > > > 1149 > > > > 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { > > > > 1151 unsigned long flags; > > > > 1152 > > > > 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > > parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first > > and later > > > > mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > > Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? > > > > read_locks are recursive but I wanted to make the static checker happy. Don't do things just to make the static checker happy. regards, dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-17 10:14 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-17 10:24 ` Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-18 7:10 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-18 19:19 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Hemant Kumar @ 2020-04-18 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manivannan Sadhasivam; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hi Mani, On 4/17/20 3:14 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Hi Hemant, > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:37:16PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: >> On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> Hi Dan, >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>> Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, >>>> >>>> The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data >>>> transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker >>>> warning: >>>> >>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() >>>> error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) >>>> >>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >>>> 1142 } >>>> 1143 >>>> 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ >>>> 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); >>>> 1146 >>>> 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) >>>> 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); >>>> 1149 >>>> 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { >>>> 1151 unsigned long flags; >>>> 1152 >>>> 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first >> and later >> >> mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> >> Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? >> > read_locks are recursive but I wanted to make the static checker happy. But > looking into it further (and after having a chat with Arnd), we might need to > refactor the locking here. > > Since 'chan->lock' only prevents 'mhi_chan->ch_state', how about doing something > like below? As comment mentioned for OOB (to enter DB mode) write lock is acquired with preemption disabled (irqsave ver). In case of OOB event control does not go to mhi_queue_buf path. For transfer completion events read_lock_bh is acquired and channel state is checked. This lock is held for entire handling of the transfer completion so that in case __mhi_unprepare_channel() is called from power down context write lock is acquired for channel lock to change channel state, which would wait until parse_xfer_event for data transfer is done (reader is in critical section). In case if __mhi_unprepare_channel() wins then parse_xfer_event is skipped otherwise parse_xfer_event is done and then channel state is changed. > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > index 3e9aa3b2da77..904f9be7a142 100644 > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > @@ -474,19 +474,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, > result.transaction_status = (ev_code == MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW) ? > -EOVERFLOW : 0; > > - /* > - * If it's a DB Event then we need to grab the lock > - * with preemption disabled and as a write because we > - * have to update db register and there are chances that > - * another thread could be doing the same. > - */ > - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) > - write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > - else > - read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > - > - if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) > - goto end_process_tx_event; > + read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > + if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) { > + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > + return 0; > + } > + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > > switch (ev_code) { > case MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW: > @@ -559,10 +552,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, > > mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1; > read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > + write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > if (tre_ring->wp != tre_ring->rp && > MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl)) { > mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); > } > + write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > break; > } > @@ -572,12 +567,6 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, > break; > } /* switch(MHI_EV_READ_CODE(EV_TRB_CODE,event)) */ > > -end_process_tx_event: > - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) > - write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > - else > - read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > - > return 0; > } > > Moreover, I do have couple of concerns: > > 1. 'mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1' needs to be added to the critical section > above. > > 2. Why we have {write/read}_lock_irq variants for chan->lock? I don't see where > the db or ch_state got shared with hardirq handler. Maybe we should only have > *_bh (softirq) variants all over the place? > > Thanks, > Mani > >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> The caller is already holding this lock. >>>> >>> Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where the locking >>> has gone wrong. Will fix it. >>> >>> Thanks for reporting! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mani >>> >>>> 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); >>>> 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >>>> 1156 } >>>> 1157 >>>> 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); >>>> 1159 >>>> 1160 return 0; >>>> 1161 } >>>> 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> dan carpenter >> -- >> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, >> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-18 7:10 ` Hemant Kumar @ 2020-04-18 19:19 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-20 22:57 ` Hemant Kumar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-18 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hemant Kumar; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hi Hemant, Please try to use an email client supporting plain text mode like mutt. Your reply looks mangled. On 18 April 2020 12:40:10 PM IST, Hemant Kumar <hemantk@codeaurora.org> wrote: >Hi Mani, > >On 4/17/20 3:14 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >> Hi Hemant, >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:37:16PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: >>> On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>>> Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, >>>>> >>>>> The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data >>>>> transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker >>>>> warning: >>>>> >>>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() >>>>> error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) >>>>> >>>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >>>>> 1142 } >>>>> 1143 >>>>> 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ >>>>> 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); >>>>> 1146 >>>>> 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) >>>>> 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); >>>>> 1149 >>>>> 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { >>>>> 1151 unsigned long flags; >>>>> 1152 >>>>> 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, >flags); >>> parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : >read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first >>> and later >>> >>> mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, >flags); >>> >>> Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? >>> >> read_locks are recursive but I wanted to make the static checker >happy. But >> looking into it further (and after having a chat with Arnd), we might >need to >> refactor the locking here. >> >> Since 'chan->lock' only prevents 'mhi_chan->ch_state', how about >doing something >> like below? > >As comment mentioned for OOB (to enter DB mode) write lock is acquired > >with preemption disabled (irqsave ver). In case of OOB event control >does not go to mhi_queue_buf > >path. Again, why do we need irq version of write lock. It should only be used if the data is shared with hardirq handlers which I don't see. Otherwise, write_lock_bh() looks sufficient to me as this itself is an exclusive lock. >For transfer completion events >read_lock_bh is acquired and >channel state is checked. > >This lock is held for entire handling of the transfer completion so >that >in case > >__mhi_unprepare_channel() is called from power down context write lock >is acquired > >for channel lock to change channel state, which would wait until >parse_xfer_event for > >data transfer is done (reader is in critical section). In case if >__mhi_unprepare_channel() wins then > >parse_xfer_event is skipped otherwise parse_xfer_event is done and then > >channel state is changed. > So if we get unprepare_channel() after checking the channel state in parse_xfer_event(), what could go wrong? Also, grabbing the lock for the entire function doesn't look good to me. The purpose of the chan->lock is just to protect 'chan_state'/DB and not the whole function. Thanks, Mani >> >> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >> index 3e9aa3b2da77..904f9be7a142 100644 >> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >> @@ -474,19 +474,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct >mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, >> result.transaction_status = (ev_code == MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW) >? >> -EOVERFLOW : 0; >> >> - /* >> - * If it's a DB Event then we need to grab the lock >> - * with preemption disabled and as a write because we >> - * have to update db register and there are chances that >> - * another thread could be doing the same. >> - */ >> - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) >> - write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> - else >> - read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >> - >> - if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) >> - goto end_process_tx_event; >> + read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >> + if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) { >> + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >> + return 0; >> + } >> + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >> >> switch (ev_code) { >> case MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW: >> @@ -559,10 +552,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct >mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, >> >> mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1; >> read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); >> + write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> if (tre_ring->wp != tre_ring->rp && >> MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl)) { >> mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); >> } >> + write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); >> break; >> } >> @@ -572,12 +567,6 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct >mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, >> break; >> } /* switch(MHI_EV_READ_CODE(EV_TRB_CODE,event)) */ >> >> -end_process_tx_event: >> - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) >> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >> - else >> - read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >> - >> return 0; >> } >> >> Moreover, I do have couple of concerns: >> >> 1. 'mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1' needs to be added to the critical >section >> above. >> >> 2. Why we have {write/read}_lock_irq variants for chan->lock? I don't >see where >> the db or ch_state got shared with hardirq handler. Maybe we should >only have >> *_bh (softirq) variants all over the place? >> >> Thanks, >> Mani >> >>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> The caller is already holding this lock. >>>>> >>>> Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where >the locking >>>> has gone wrong. Will fix it. >>>> >>>> Thanks for reporting! >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mani >>>> >>>>> 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); >>>>> 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, >flags); >>>>> 1156 } >>>>> 1157 >>>>> 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, >flags); >>>>> 1159 >>>>> 1160 return 0; >>>>> 1161 } >>>>> 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> dan carpenter >>> -- >>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora >Forum, >>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-18 19:19 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-20 22:57 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-21 5:52 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Hemant Kumar @ 2020-04-20 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manivannan Sadhasivam; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hi Mani, On 4/18/20 12:19 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Hi Hemant, > > Please try to use an email client supporting plain text mode like mutt. Your reply looks mangled. > > On 18 April 2020 12:40:10 PM IST, Hemant Kumar <hemantk@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hi Mani, >> >> On 4/17/20 3:14 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> Hi Hemant, >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:37:16PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: >>>> On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>>>> Hi Dan, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>>>> Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data >>>>>> transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker >>>>>> warning: >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() >>>>>> error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >>>>>> 1142 } >>>>>> 1143 >>>>>> 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ >>>>>> 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); >>>>>> 1146 >>>>>> 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) >>>>>> 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); >>>>>> 1149 >>>>>> 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { >>>>>> 1151 unsigned long flags; >>>>>> 1152 >>>>>> 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, >> flags); >>>> parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : >> read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first >>>> and later >>>> >>>> mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, >> flags); >>>> >>>> Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? >>>> >>> read_locks are recursive but I wanted to make the static checker >> happy. But >>> looking into it further (and after having a chat with Arnd), we might >> need to >>> refactor the locking here. >>> >>> Since 'chan->lock' only prevents 'mhi_chan->ch_state', how about >> doing something >>> like below? >> >> As comment mentioned for OOB (to enter DB mode) write lock is acquired >> >> with preemption disabled (irqsave ver). In case of OOB event control >> does not go to mhi_queue_buf >> >> path. > > Again, why do we need irq version of write lock. It should only be used if the data is shared with hardirq handlers which I don't see. Otherwise, write_lock_bh() looks sufficient to me as this itself is an exclusive lock. irq ver disables preemption where as bh ver does not. In case of OOB event, idea is not get preempted and this is for short duration of ringing the channel doorbell. > >> For transfer completion events >read_lock_bh is acquired and >> channel state is checked. >> >> This lock is held for entire handling of the transfer completion so >> that >> in case >> >> __mhi_unprepare_channel() is called from power down context write lock >> is acquired >> >> for channel lock to change channel state, which would wait until >> parse_xfer_event for >> >> data transfer is done (reader is in critical section). In case if >> __mhi_unprepare_channel() wins then >> >> parse_xfer_event is skipped otherwise parse_xfer_event is done and then >> >> channel state is changed. >> > > So if we get unprepare_channel() after checking the channel state in parse_xfer_event(), what could go wrong? > Also, grabbing the lock for the entire function doesn't look good to me. The purpose of the chan->lock is just to protect 'chan_state'/DB and not the whole function. > main problem unprepare_channel and parse_xfer_event have lot in common due to that we can not let them run in parallel. For example -parse_xfer_event is working on transfer ring (rp and wp updates) -parse_xfer_event calling dma_unmap_single on buffer -__mhi_unprepare_channel() calling mhi_reset_chan() and mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt(). > Thanks, > Mani > >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >> b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >>> index 3e9aa3b2da77..904f9be7a142 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >>> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c >>> @@ -474,19 +474,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct >> mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, >>> result.transaction_status = (ev_code == MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW) >> ? >>> -EOVERFLOW : 0; >>> >>> - /* >>> - * If it's a DB Event then we need to grab the lock >>> - * with preemption disabled and as a write because we >>> - * have to update db register and there are chances that >>> - * another thread could be doing the same. >>> - */ >>> - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) >>> - write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >>> - else >>> - read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >>> - >>> - if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) >>> - goto end_process_tx_event; >>> + read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >>> + if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) { >>> + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >>> + return 0; >>> + } >>> + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >>> >>> switch (ev_code) { >>> case MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW: >>> @@ -559,10 +552,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct >> mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, >>> >>> mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1; >>> read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); >>> + write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >>> if (tre_ring->wp != tre_ring->rp && >>> MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl)) { >>> mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); >>> } >>> + write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >>> read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); >>> break; >>> } >>> @@ -572,12 +567,6 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct >> mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, >>> break; >>> } /* switch(MHI_EV_READ_CODE(EV_TRB_CODE,event)) */ >>> >>> -end_process_tx_event: >>> - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) >>> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); >>> - else >>> - read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); >>> - >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> Moreover, I do have couple of concerns: >>> >>> 1. 'mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1' needs to be added to the critical >> section >>> above. >>> >>> 2. Why we have {write/read}_lock_irq variants for chan->lock? I don't >> see where >>> the db or ch_state got shared with hardirq handler. Maybe we should >> only have >>> *_bh (softirq) variants all over the place? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mani >>> >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>> The caller is already holding this lock. >>>>>> >>>>> Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where >> the locking >>>>> has gone wrong. Will fix it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for reporting! >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Mani >>>>> >>>>>> 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); >>>>>> 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, >> flags); >>>>>> 1156 } >>>>>> 1157 >>>>>> 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, >> flags); >>>>>> 1159 >>>>>> 1160 return 0; >>>>>> 1161 } >>>>>> 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> dan carpenter >>>> -- >>>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora >> Forum, >>>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-20 22:57 ` Hemant Kumar @ 2020-04-21 5:52 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-21 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hemant Kumar; +Cc: Dan Carpenter, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:57:58PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: > Hi Mani, > > On 4/18/20 12:19 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Hi Hemant, > > > > Please try to use an email client supporting plain text mode like mutt. Your reply looks mangled. > > > > On 18 April 2020 12:40:10 PM IST, Hemant Kumar <hemantk@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > Hi Mani, > > > > > > On 4/17/20 3:14 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > Hi Hemant, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:37:16PM -0700, Hemant Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 4/7/20 7:33 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data > > > > > > > transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker > > > > > > > warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() > > > > > > > error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > > > > > 1142 } > > > > > > > 1143 > > > > > > > 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ > > > > > > > 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); > > > > > > > 1146 > > > > > > > 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) > > > > > > > 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); > > > > > > > 1149 > > > > > > > 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { > > > > > > > 1151 unsigned long flags; > > > > > > > 1152 > > > > > > > 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, > > > flags); > > > > > parse_xfer_event is taking read lock : > > > read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); first > > > > > and later > > > > > > > > > > mhi_queue_buf takes read lock: read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, > > > flags); > > > > > > > > > > Both are read locks which are recursive, is this problematic ? > > > > > > > > > read_locks are recursive but I wanted to make the static checker > > > happy. But > > > > looking into it further (and after having a chat with Arnd), we might > > > need to > > > > refactor the locking here. > > > > > > > > Since 'chan->lock' only prevents 'mhi_chan->ch_state', how about > > > doing something > > > > like below? > > > > > > As comment mentioned for OOB (to enter DB mode) write lock is acquired > > > > > > with preemption disabled (irqsave ver). In case of OOB event control > > > does not go to mhi_queue_buf > > > > > > path. > > > > Again, why do we need irq version of write lock. It should only be used if the data is shared with hardirq handlers which I don't see. Otherwise, write_lock_bh() looks sufficient to me as this itself is an exclusive lock. > irq ver disables preemption where as bh ver does not. In case of OOB event, > idea is not get preempted and this is for short duration of ringing the > channel doorbell. This is a clear abuse of write_lock_irq() API. write_lock_irq() should _only_ be used when the data is shared with a hardirq handler. The original comment says, "If it's a DB Event then we need to grab the lock with preemption disabled and as a write because we have to update db register and there are chances that another thread could be doing the same." If the 'another' thread has the lock for this piece of code then we don't need to disable the irq, isn't it? The irq needs to be disabled only if the 'another' thread is a hardirq handler. I think the problem here is you are caution of not getting preempted while mhi_ring_chan_db() which I don't see why. Is this function non reentrant? I don't think so. Furthermore, there are _lot_ of places the *_irq and *_bh versions of locks are mixed. One such instance is mhi_queue_buf() where the read_lock_irq() is used for mhi_ring_chan_db() while mhi_queue_skb() uses read_lock_bh(). > > > > > For transfer completion events >read_lock_bh is acquired and > > > channel state is checked. > > > > > > This lock is held for entire handling of the transfer completion so > > > that > > > in case > > > > > > __mhi_unprepare_channel() is called from power down context write lock > > > is acquired > > > > > > for channel lock to change channel state, which would wait until > > > parse_xfer_event for > > > > > > data transfer is done (reader is in critical section). In case if > > > __mhi_unprepare_channel() wins then > > > > > > parse_xfer_event is skipped otherwise parse_xfer_event is done and then > > > > > > channel state is changed. > > > > > > > So if we get unprepare_channel() after checking the channel state in parse_xfer_event(), what could go wrong? > > Also, grabbing the lock for the entire function doesn't look good to me. The purpose of the chan->lock is just to protect 'chan_state'/DB and not the whole function. > > > main problem unprepare_channel and parse_xfer_event have lot in common due > to that we can not let them run in parallel. For example -parse_xfer_event > is working on transfer ring (rp and wp updates) > -parse_xfer_event calling dma_unmap_single on buffer > -__mhi_unprepare_channel() calling mhi_reset_chan() and > mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt(). Hmm. So the issue will be when __mhi_unprepare_channel() gets called after parse_xfer_event() checked the 'mhi_chan->ch_state'. So if we have the read_lock for the whole case then it is guarenteed to run before __mhi_unprepare_channel() does its part. Let's keep it as it is. But please look into the irq vs bh part above. Thanks, Mani > > Thanks, > > Mani > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > > index 3e9aa3b2da77..904f9be7a142 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > > > > @@ -474,19 +474,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct > > > mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, > > > > result.transaction_status = (ev_code == MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW) > > > ? > > > > -EOVERFLOW : 0; > > > > - /* > > > > - * If it's a DB Event then we need to grab the lock > > > > - * with preemption disabled and as a write because we > > > > - * have to update db register and there are chances that > > > > - * another thread could be doing the same. > > > > - */ > > > > - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) > > > > - write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > > - else > > > > - read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > > > > - > > > > - if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) > > > > - goto end_process_tx_event; > > > > + read_lock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > > > > + if (mhi_chan->ch_state != MHI_CH_STATE_ENABLED) { > > > > + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > > > > + return 0; > > > > + } > > > > + read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > > > > switch (ev_code) { > > > > case MHI_EV_CC_OVERFLOW: > > > > @@ -559,10 +552,12 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct > > > mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, > > > > mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1; > > > > read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > > > > + write_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > > if (tre_ring->wp != tre_ring->rp && > > > > MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl)) { > > > > mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); > > > > } > > > > + write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > > read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > > > > break; > > > > } > > > > @@ -572,12 +567,6 @@ static int parse_xfer_event(struct > > > mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, > > > > break; > > > > } /* switch(MHI_EV_READ_CODE(EV_TRB_CODE,event)) */ > > > > -end_process_tx_event: > > > > - if (ev_code >= MHI_EV_CC_OOB) > > > > - write_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > > > > - else > > > > - read_unlock_bh(&mhi_chan->lock); > > > > - > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > Moreover, I do have couple of concerns: > > > > > > > > 1. 'mhi_chan->db_cfg.db_mode = 1' needs to be added to the critical > > > section > > > > above. > > > > > > > > 2. Why we have {write/read}_lock_irq variants for chan->lock? I don't > > > see where > > > > the db or ch_state got shared with hardirq handler. Maybe we should > > > only have > > > > *_bh (softirq) variants all over the place? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mani > > > > > > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > The caller is already holding this lock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm. We have one internal user of this function and that's where > > > the locking > > > > > > has gone wrong. Will fix it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for reporting! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Mani > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); > > > > > > > 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, > > > flags); > > > > > > > 1156 } > > > > > > > 1157 > > > > > > > 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, > > > flags); > > > > > > > 1159 > > > > > > > 1160 return 0; > > > > > > > 1161 } > > > > > > > 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > dan carpenter > > > > > -- > > > > > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora > > > Forum, > > > > > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > > > > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-07 13:55 [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer Dan Carpenter 2020-04-07 14:33 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-21 6:03 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-21 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors, hemantk Hi Dan, On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:55:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, > > The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data > transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker > warning: > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1153 mhi_queue_buf() > error: double locked 'mhi_chan->lock' (orig line 1110) > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > 1142 } > 1143 > 1144 /* Toggle wake to exit out of M2 */ > 1145 mhi_cntrl->wake_toggle(mhi_cntrl); > 1146 > 1147 if (mhi_chan->dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) > 1148 atomic_inc(&mhi_cntrl->pending_pkts); > 1149 > 1150 if (likely(MHI_DB_ACCESS_VALID(mhi_cntrl))) { > 1151 unsigned long flags; > 1152 > 1153 read_lock_irqsave(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The caller is already holding this lock. > This function will be called from multiple places. It needs to have the chan->lock on its own. I thought about dropping the lock in parse_xfer_event() before calling this function but that won't really solve any issue since read_locks are recursive and by doing so we are only making the static checkers happy. So I'd consider this bug report as false positive. Thanks, Mani > 1154 mhi_ring_chan_db(mhi_cntrl, mhi_chan); > 1155 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_chan->lock, flags); > 1156 } > 1157 > 1158 read_unlock_irqrestore(&mhi_cntrl->pm_lock, flags); > 1159 > 1160 return 0; > 1161 } > 1162 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf); > > regards, > dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer @ 2020-04-07 13:56 Dan Carpenter 2020-04-07 14:31 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-07 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: manivannan.sadhasivam Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam, linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker warning: drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1093 mhi_gen_tre() warn: bitwise AND condition is false here drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c 1088 1089 ret = mhi_cntrl->map_single(mhi_cntrl, buf_info); 1090 if (ret) 1091 return ret; 1092 1093 eob = !!(flags & MHI_EOB); ^^^^^^^ This is zero. Was BIT(0) intended? 1094 eot = !!(flags & MHI_EOT); 1095 chain = !!(flags & MHI_CHAIN); 1096 bei = !!(mhi_chan->intmod); 1097 1098 mhi_tre = tre_ring->wp; 1099 mhi_tre->ptr = MHI_TRE_DATA_PTR(buf_info->p_addr); regards, dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer 2020-04-07 13:56 Dan Carpenter @ 2020-04-07 14:31 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2020-04-07 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-arm-msm, kernel-janitors Hi Dan, On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:56:08PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Hello Manivannan Sadhasivam, > > The patch 189ff97cca53: "bus: mhi: core: Add support for data > transfer" from Feb 20, 2020, leads to the following static checker > warning: > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c:1093 mhi_gen_tre() > warn: bitwise AND condition is false here > > drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c > 1088 > 1089 ret = mhi_cntrl->map_single(mhi_cntrl, buf_info); > 1090 if (ret) > 1091 return ret; > 1092 > 1093 eob = !!(flags & MHI_EOB); > ^^^^^^^ > This is zero. Was BIT(0) intended? > Darn. The `enum mhi_flags` is supposed to start with 1. I'll fix it with your Reported-by tag. Btw, which static checker you are using? I did try sparse and W=2. Thanks, Mani > 1094 eot = !!(flags & MHI_EOT); > 1095 chain = !!(flags & MHI_CHAIN); > 1096 bei = !!(mhi_chan->intmod); > 1097 > 1098 mhi_tre = tre_ring->wp; > 1099 mhi_tre->ptr = MHI_TRE_DATA_PTR(buf_info->p_addr); > > regards, > dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-04-21 6:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-04-07 13:55 [bug report] bus: mhi: core: Add support for data transfer Dan Carpenter 2020-04-07 14:33 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-17 3:37 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-17 10:14 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-17 10:24 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-04-18 7:10 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-18 19:19 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-20 22:57 ` Hemant Kumar 2020-04-21 5:52 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-21 6:03 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam 2020-04-07 13:56 Dan Carpenter 2020-04-07 14:31 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).