linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMz4ku+TwPrnE+CuyL7MtcStcU=DLP9an4PVp1J=hjy3fOkOTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:58:57 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when
 stopping gadget

Hi Felipe,

On 9 September 2016 at 19:03, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> writes:
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> index 057739d..22787b6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> @@ -999,6 +999,7 @@ static int dwc3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>               goto err0;
>>
>>       spin_lock_init(&dwc->lock);
>> +     init_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> this should be done only when gadget is required; meaning that this
> should be moved to dwc3_gadget_init()

OK.

>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>> index b2317e7..858e661 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -843,6 +844,7 @@ struct dwc3 {
>>       dma_addr_t              ep0_bounce_addr;
>>       dma_addr_t              scratch_addr;
>>       struct dwc3_request     ep0_usb_req;
>> +     struct completion       ep0_completed;
>
> when you call this "ep0_completed" it seems like you're defining a flag,
> but you're not :) How about "ep0_in_setup" instead? That conveys the
> idea that we're waiting for ep0 to reach setup phase.

Make sense and will change it.

>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> index 632e5a4..baf932d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ static void dwc3_ep0_stall_and_restart(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>
>>       dwc->ep0state = EP0_SETUP_PHASE;
>>       dwc3_ep0_out_start(dwc);
>> +     complete(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> no, this is wrong. I see what you're trying to do here, but we don't
> want to duplicate this call to complete() right? One thing we can
> realize is that *always* after STATUS phase or after a STALL, we will go
> through dwc3_ep0_out_start(), this mean we can call complete() before
> starting the following SETUP phase.
>
> Single place to call complete() ;-)

Make sense to me and I will fix that in next version.

>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>> index 1a33308..c9026ce 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>> @@ -1441,6 +1441,15 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_run_stop(struct dwc3 *dwc, int is_on, int suspend)
>>       if (pm_runtime_suspended(dwc->dev))
>>               return 0;
>>
>> +     /*
>> +      * Per databook, when we want to stop the gadget, if a control transfer
>> +      * is still in process, complete it and get the core into setup phase.
>> +      */
>> +     if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>> +             reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> this seems unnecessary to me. Also, why return here so the caller has to

We should re-init the completion due to it will complete control
transfer many times before we try to stop gadget.

> wait? You could just have called wait_for_completion() here straight
> away:
>
>         if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>                 /* should this be interruptible? */
>                 ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&dwc->ep0_in_setup,
>                                 msecs_to_jiffies(500));
>                 if (ret == 0) {
>                         dwc3_trace(trace_dwc3_gadget, "RUN/STOP timeout");
>                         return -ETIMEDOUT;
>                 }
>         }
>
> There's also no need for that "try_again" trickery. We either can halt
> the controller within 500ms or we cannot.

But this is in atomic context and we can not issue
wait_for_completion_timeout() in atomic context, then we should just
return here.

-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards