From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932192AbcI0Ixo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:53:44 -0400
Received: from mailout1.hostsharing.net ([83.223.95.204]:57913 "EHLO
        mailout1.hostsharing.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752018AbcI0Ixh (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:53:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:54:13 +0200
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [Update][RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 2/5] driver core: Functional
 dependencies tracking support
Message-ID: <20160927085413.GA5744@wunner.de>
References: <27296716.H9VWo8ShOm@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <5257325.y9rG1UM74b@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <2480829.3iNV7K5Pdo@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <2141382.sMORCbDyAF@vostro.rjw.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2141382.sMORCbDyAF@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:33:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +void device_links_unbind_consumers(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct device_link *link;
> +	int idx;
> +
> + start:
> +	idx = device_links_read_lock();
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links_to_consumers, s_node) {
> +		enum device_link_status status;
> +
> +		if (link->flags & DEVICE_LINK_STATELESS)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		spin_lock(&link->lock);
> +		status = link->status;
> +		if (status == DEVICE_LINK_CONSUMER_PROBE) {
> +			spin_unlock(&link->lock);
> +
> +			device_links_read_unlock(idx);
> +
> +			wait_for_device_probe();
> +			goto start;
> +		}

While revisiting this function it just occurred to me that there's
a theoretical infinite loop here if the consumer probes, is unbound
by the supplier, then reprobes again before the supplier had a chance
to update the link to DEVICE_LINK_SUPPLIER_UNBIND.  Perhaps this isn't
a problem in practice, but noting anyway.

The problem is that the link state is written to both by the supplier
and consumer.  If there was a separate bit in struct device_link to
indicate the supplier's desire to unbind, the problem would go away.
However a mix of such a bit plus the state machine would become
somewhat confusing...

Best regards,

Lukas