From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41EFC43387 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 10:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAF6206BB for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 10:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726096AbeL3K3b convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2018 05:29:31 -0500 Received: from coyote.holtmann.net ([212.227.132.17]:53674 "EHLO mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726063AbeL3K3a (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2018 05:29:30 -0500 Received: from marcel-macpro.fritz.box (p4FF9F1DE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.249.241.222]) by mail.holtmann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79788CEE81; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 11:37:11 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix flow bugs in H5 so the protocol doesn't stall From: Marcel Holtmann In-Reply-To: <1527256763-13474-1-git-send-email-emil.lenngren@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 11:29:28 +0100 Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: References: <1527256763-13474-1-git-send-email-emil.lenngren@gmail.com> To: Emil Lenngren X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Hi Emil, > 1. If more than tx_win packets are enqueued, so that the unack queue > gets full, then when packets are later acked, uart tx is not woken up, > meaning that the flow will be stalled unless uart tx is not later > woken up for some other reason (e.g. packet is received so an ack > needs to be sent). > > 2. If remote peer sends tx_win packets to us and our ack(s) are > incorrectly received by the remote device, it will first resend the > tx_win packets and wait for their ack before it can send the next > packets. However, we only send ack if a NEW packet (not a resent packet) > is arrived. Therefore, we will never send ack and the remote device > will keep resend the packets (and wait for the acks) forever, until > we send a new tx packet. do you have interest in working on the bt3wire.c driver that is a pure serdev driver and make it fully H:5 compliant. I think it would be good to move away from hci_h5.c since it is too much entangled with the line discipline. > --- > drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c | 11 +++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c > index abee221..6fca22c 100644 > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c > @@ -238,16 +238,19 @@ static int h5_close(struct hci_uart *hu) > return 0; > } > > -static void h5_pkt_cull(struct h5 *h5) > +static void h5_pkt_cull(struct hci_uart *hu) > { > + struct h5 *h5 = hu->priv; > struct sk_buff *skb, *tmp; > unsigned long flags; > int i, to_remove; > + bool was_full; > u8 seq; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&h5->unack.lock, flags); > > to_remove = skb_queue_len(&h5->unack); > + was_full = to_remove == h5->tx_win; I would really add a comment here. > if (to_remove == 0) > goto unlock; > > @@ -278,6 +281,8 @@ static void h5_pkt_cull(struct h5 *h5) > > unlock: > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h5->unack.lock, flags); > + if (was_full && to_remove > 0 && !skb_queue_empty(&h5->rel)) > + hci_uart_tx_wakeup(hu); And here as well. it should be commented on why this is the right expression. Especially since it is rather complex. Can we not check all the conditions up-front? > } > > static void h5_handle_internal_rx(struct hci_uart *hu) > @@ -354,7 +359,7 @@ static void h5_complete_rx_pkt(struct hci_uart *hu) > > h5->rx_ack = H5_HDR_ACK(hdr); > > - h5_pkt_cull(h5); > + h5_pkt_cull(hu); > > switch (H5_HDR_PKT_TYPE(hdr)) { > case HCI_EVENT_PKT: > @@ -419,6 +424,8 @@ static int h5_rx_3wire_hdr(struct hci_uart *hu, unsigned char c) > if (H5_HDR_RELIABLE(hdr) && H5_HDR_SEQ(hdr) != h5->tx_ack) { > BT_ERR("Out-of-order packet arrived (%u != %u)", > H5_HDR_SEQ(hdr), h5->tx_ack); > + set_bit(H5_TX_ACK_REQ, &h5->flags); > + hci_uart_tx_wakeup(hu); > h5_reset_rx(h5); I really wonder if these are actually two independent patches fixing two independent things. Regards Marcel