[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210524185520.GA1332625@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 14:55:20 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
Guido Kiener <Guido.Kiener@...de-schwarz.com>,
dave penkler <dpenkler@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+e2eae5639e7203360018@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dwmw@...zon.co.uk" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com" <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] INFO: rcu detected stall in tx
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 06:18:59PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 20.5.2021 23.30, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > As for the xhci driver, there maybe a case where the stream URB never
> > gets to complete because the transaction err_count is not properly
> > updated. The err_count for transaction error is stored in ep_ring, but
> > the xhci driver may not be able to lookup the correct ep_ring based on
> > TRB address for streams. There are cases for streams where the event
> > TRBs have their TRB pointer field cleared to '0' (xhci spec section
> > 4.12.2). If the xhci driver doesn't see ep_ring for transaction error,
> > it automatically does a soft-retry. This is seen from one of our
> > testings that the driver was repeatedly doing soft-retry until the class
> > driver timed out.
> >
> > Hi Mathias, maybe you have some comment on this? Thanks.
>
> This is true, if TRB pointer is 0 then there is no retry limit for soft retry.
> We should add one and prevent a loop. after e few soft resets we can end with a
> hard reset to clear the host side endpoint halt.
>
> We don't know the URB that was being tansferred during the error, and can't
> give it back with a proper error code.
> In that sense we still end up waiting for a timeout and someone to cancel
> the urb.
That's not good. There may not be a timeout; drivers expect transfers
to complete with a failure, not to be retried indefinitely.
However, if you do know which endpoint/stream the error is connected to,
you should be able to get the URB. It will be the first one queued for
that endpoint/stream.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists