[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201006012333.GA399825@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:23:33 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Nazime Hande Harputluoglu <handeharputlu@...gle.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is usb_hcd_giveback_urb() allowed in task context?
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:38:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/5/20 9:25 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:21:30PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > No, no -- it won't work right if it's called in process context. Not
> > only do the spinlock calls leave the interrupt flag unchanged, also the
> > driver callback routines may expect to be invoked with interrupts
> > disabled. (We have tried to fix this, but I'm not at all certain that
> > all the cases have been updated.)
> >
>
> In the case of vhci case, usb_hcd_giveback_urb() is called from vhci's
> urb_enqueue, when it determines it doesn't need to xmit the urb and can give
> it back. This path runs in task context.
>
> Do you have any recommendation on how this case can be handled?
Just call local_irq_disable() before usb_hcd_giveback_urb(), and
local_irq_enable() afterward.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists