[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0807240931220.3494-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [USB boot crash, -git] ecm_do_notify(), list_add corruption.
prev->next should be next (ffff88003b8f82f8)
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> I modified dummy_hcd to print messages whenever a request
> was queued to an endpoint, or acompletion was issued.
> If the endpoint queue was empty at that time, it's shown.
...
> ep-c: queue req c10980e0 (q empty)
>
> Here's where it starts to go squirrely...
>
> You would EXPECT to see a completion callback here since
> that's what dummy_queue() says to do: write this small
> packet into a FIFO (just like Real Hardware would) and
> wait for the host to collect it.
>
> Note that the emulated FIFO is represented by a request
> object ... one that *never* seems to get a completion
> issued for it. That seems very wrong...
I think I see the problem. Starting at line 533, we have:
/* implement an emulated single-request FIFO */
if (ep->desc && (ep->desc->bEndpointAddress & USB_DIR_IN) &&
list_empty (&dum->fifo_req.queue) &&
list_empty (&ep->queue) &&
_req->length <= FIFO_SIZE) {
req = &dum->fifo_req;
req->req = *_req;
req->req.buf = dum->fifo_buf;
memcpy (dum->fifo_buf, _req->buf, _req->length);
req->req.context = dum;
req->req.complete = fifo_complete;
spin_unlock (&dum->lock);
_req->actual = _req->length;
_req->status = 0;
_req->complete (_ep, _req);
spin_lock (&dum->lock);
}
list_add_tail (&req->queue, &ep->queue);
spin_unlock_irqrestore (&dum->lock, flags);
The list_add_tail() gets called at the wrong time if the completion
routine resubmits. It should look more like this:
list_add_tail (&req->queue, &ep->queue);
spin_unlock (&dum->lock);
_req->actual = _req->length;
_req->status = 0;
_req->complete (_ep, _req);
spin_lock (&dum->lock);
} else {
list_add_tail (&req->queue, &ep->queue);
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore (&dum->lock, flags);
Can you make the necessary change and try it out?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists