linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ALSA: pcm: fix incorrect hw

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: <s5himgxmqfp.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 12:40:42 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@...el.com>
Cc:     "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        paulhsia <paulhsia@...omium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: pcm: fix incorrect hw_base increase

On Fri, 15 May 2020 11:36:19 +0200,
Lu, Brent wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Updating hw_ptr_jiffies at that code path looks correct, but it still leaves the
> > question why this condition happens.  It means that the actual hwptr isn't
> > changed and yet only jiffies increase significantly; it means that the hardware
> > can't report proper pointer, and it should have set
> > SNDRV_PCM_INFO_BATCH flag, then the jiffies check is skipped.
> > 
> > With which hardware and under which situation did it happen (and the patch
> > fixed)?
> > 
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Takashi
> > 
> 
> >From time to time we got questions from google about why sometimes the
> snd_pcm_avail() returns a value larger than buffer size. Recently we finally
> found reliable reproduce steps: it's on Intel GLK Chromebook Fleex with
> SOF firmware. There is a 1/20 chance the audio playback to HDMI fails.
> 
> >From the FW side we observe a buffer runderrun, the FW is not able to
> recover it for some reason and stops the pipe.
> 
> >From the Linux side we see the pos does not increase because the FW stops
> receiving data but suddenly the hw_prt is increased by buffer_size (16368).
> It could make snd_pcm_avail() reporting a false underrun to the caller like
> following log:
> 
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.712042+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.510086] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 96 appl_ptr 4096 avail 12368
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.712043+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.510149] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 96 appl_ptr 6910 avail 9554
> ...
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.883095+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.680868] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 96 appl_ptr 15102 avail 1362
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.883104+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.681052] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 96 appl_ptr 15102 avail 1362
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.883109+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.681130] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 96 appl_ptr 16464 avail 0
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.929330+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.726515] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 16464 appl_ptr 16464 avail 16368
> 2020-05-09T16:08:32.929512+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.727041] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 16464 appl_ptr 16464 avail 16368
> 
> Or it could make snd_pcm_avail() returns an invalid number and confuses the
> Caller like following log:
> 
> 2020-05-09T16:08:33.054039+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.851755] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 16464 appl_ptr 27390 avail 5442
> 2020-05-09T16:08:33.129552+08:00 DEBUG kernel: [  418.926491] sound pcmC0D5p: pos 96 hw_ptr 32832 appl_ptr 27390 avail 21810
> 2020-05-09T16:08:33.131746+08:00 ERR cras_server[1907]: pcm_avail returned frames larger than buf_size: sof-glkda7219max: :0,5: 21810 > 16368
> 
> I've submitted a patch to fix the issue in SOF side. However, I think it's also good
> to fix the incorrect hw_base increasement in Linux side.
> 
> https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/pull/2926

Oh this whole information (at least some digested version) should have
been included in the patch description.  Otherwise we have no idea why
it's needed and what actually means.

Let's wait for Jaroslav's review, and if it's OK, could you resubmit
with more description?


thanks,

Takashi