Hi Wesley,

(first of all, sorry for the super long delay. This really fell through
the cracks)

Wesley Cheng <wcheng@codeaurora.org> writes:
> Hi Felipe,
>
> On 6/9/2021 1:57 PM, Wesley Cheng wrote:
>> Hi Felipe,
>> 
>> On 5/19/2021 1:52 AM, Wesley Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/11/2021 1:13 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Wesley Cheng <wcheng@codeaurora.org> writes:
>>>>> The list_for_each_entry_safe() macro saves the current item (n) and
>>>>> the item after (n+1), so that n can be safely removed without
>>>>> corrupting the list.  However, when traversing the list and removing
>>>>> items using gadget giveback, the DWC3 lock is briefly released,
>>>>> allowing other routines to execute.  There is a situation where, while
>>>>> items are being removed from the cancelled_list using
>>>>> dwc3_gadget_ep_cleanup_cancelled_requests(), the pullup disable
>>>>> routine is running in parallel (due to UDC unbind).  As the cleanup
>>>>> routine removes n, and the pullup disable removes n+1, once the
>>>>> cleanup retakes the DWC3 lock, it references a request who was already
>>>>> removed/handled.  With list debug enabled, this leads to a panic.
>>>>> Ensure all instances of the macro are replaced where gadget giveback
>>>>> is used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example call stack:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thread#1:
>>>>> __dwc3_gadget_ep_set_halt() - CLEAR HALT
>>>>>   -> dwc3_gadget_ep_cleanup_cancelled_requests()
>>>>>     ->list_for_each_entry_safe()
>>>>>     ->dwc3_gadget_giveback(n)
>>>>>       ->dwc3_gadget_del_and_unmap_request()- n deleted[cancelled_list]
>>>>>       ->spin_unlock
>>>>>       ->Thread#2 executes
>>>>>       ...
>>>>>     ->dwc3_gadget_giveback(n+1)
>>>>>       ->Already removed!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thread#2:
>>>>> dwc3_gadget_pullup()
>>>>>   ->waiting for dwc3 spin_lock
>>>>>   ...
>>>>>   ->Thread#1 released lock
>>>>>   ->dwc3_stop_active_transfers()
>>>>>     ->dwc3_remove_requests()
>>>>>       ->fetches n+1 item from cancelled_list (n removed by Thread#1)
>>>>>       ->dwc3_gadget_giveback()
>>>>>         ->dwc3_gadget_del_and_unmap_request()- n+1 deleted[cancelled_list]
>>>>>         ->spin_unlock
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: d4f1afe5e896 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: move requests to cancelled_list")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@codeaurora.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@kernel.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>  - Updated commit message with context call stack of an example scenario
>>>>>    seen on device.
>>>>>
>>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 8 ++++----
>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>>> index dd80e5c..efa939b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>>> @@ -1737,10 +1737,10 @@ static void dwc3_gadget_ep_skip_trbs(struct dwc3_ep *dep, struct dwc3_request *r
>>>>>  static void dwc3_gadget_ep_cleanup_cancelled_requests(struct dwc3_ep *dep)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct dwc3_request		*req;
>>>>> -	struct dwc3_request		*tmp;
>>>>>  	struct dwc3			*dwc = dep->dwc;
>>>>>  
>>>>> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &dep->cancelled_list, list) {
>>>>> +	while (!list_empty(&dep->cancelled_list)) {
>>>>> +		req = next_request(&dep->cancelled_list);
>>>>
>>>> couldn't this be solved list_replace_init() instead? Then we can keep
>>>> using the regular list_for_each_entry_safe() which has an added semantic
>>>> meaning due to its name.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Felipe,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late response.  So I tried with a list_replace_init() to
>>> within the list_for_each_entry_safe() loop to update tmp w/ the
>>> cancelled_list list head, but the issue was still observed.  This is
>>> because we can't replace the reference the loop already has stored in
>>> tmp, which is simply updated as the current item on the next iteration.
>>>
>>> I believe this is what you were trying to achieve?
>>>
>> Was wondering if you had any further inputs on this change?  As
>> mentioned, I tried a few things with list_replace_init(), which did not
>> work.
>> 
>
> Sorry for the ping.  Is this change OK to add as is?  We've been running
> into this instance pretty frequently during our testing, so just wanted
> to close on the proper changes being merged upstream.

The idea is this:

	struct list_head	local;

        spin_lock_irq(&lock);
        list_replace_init(&dwc->cancelled_list, &local);
        spin_unlock_irq(&lock);

	list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &local, list) {
        	/* ... */
	}

It looks to me this should work fine, no? You can also follow what
drivers/usb/core/hcd.c is doing in usb_giveback_urb_bh() and restarting
if dwc->cancelled_list is not empty after list_for_each_entry_safe().

Can you give that one a shot?

-- 
balbi