lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] usb: gadget: composite: split spinlock to avoid recursion
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Peter Chen wrote:

> On 19-11-12 10:33:18, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> > 'delayed_status' and 'deactivations' are used completely independent but
> > they share the same spinlock. This can result in spinlock recursion:
> >
> > BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#1, uvc-gadget/322
> > lock: 0xffffffc0570364e0, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: uvc-gadget/322, .owner_cpu: 1
> > CPU: 1 PID: 322 Comm: uvc-gadget Tainted: G C O 5.3.0-20190916-1+ #55
> > Hardware name: XXXXX (DT)
> > Call trace:
> > dump_backtrace+0x0/0x178
> > show_stack+0x24/0x30
> > dump_stack+0xc0/0x104
> > spin_dump+0x90/0xa0
> > do_raw_spin_lock+0xd8/0x108
> > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x40/0x50
> > composite_disconnect+0x2c/0x80
> > usb_gadget_disconnect+0x84/0x150
> > usb_gadget_deactivate+0x64/0x120
> > usb_function_deactivate+0x70/0x80
> > uvc_function_disconnect+0x20/0x58
> > uvc_v4l2_release+0x34/0x90
> > v4l2_release+0xbc/0xf0
> > __fput+0xb0/0x218
> > ____fput+0x20/0x30
> > task_work_run+0xa0/0xd0
> > do_notify_resume+0x2f4/0x340
> > work_pending+0x8/0x14
> >
> > Fix this by using separate spinlocks.
>
> This issue may be introduced by 0a55187a1ec8c ("USB: gadget core: Issue
> ->disconnect() callback from usb_gadget_disconnect()"), which adds
> gadget's disconnect at usb_gadget_disconnect. Add Alan, if he is Ok
> with your patch, you may cc to stable tree.

I wasn't aware of the dual usage of that lock in the composite core
(and 0a55187a1ec8c touches only the gadget core, not composite.c).

In any case, I don't have a good feel for how the locking is supposed
to work in the composite core. This is really something Felipe should
look at.

Would a better fix be to change usb_function_deactivate() so that it
doesn't hold the lock while calling usb_gadget_deactivate()? Maybe
increment cdev->deactivations unconditionally before dropping the lock
(for mutual exclusion) and then decrement it again if the call fails?

Alan Stern

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-13 16:37    [W:0.084 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site