[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3x4clfg5ypbu2aoaewibncrq43o6f6xjyxgm2k2wv7dfosevb4@4sj7tbz7gfs5>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:26:51 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>, Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
Mika Westerberg <westeri@...nel.org>, Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] thunderbolt: do not double dequeue a request
On (25/03/27 13:17), Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 02:52:54PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Some of our devices crash in tb_cfg_request_dequeue():
> >
> > general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdead000000000122: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
> >
> > CPU: 6 PID: 91007 Comm: kworker/6:2 Tainted: G U W 6.6.65-06391-gbdec63d10750 #1 (HASH:cf42 1)
> > RIP: 0010:tb_cfg_request_dequeue+0x2d/0xa0
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > ? tb_cfg_request_dequeue+0x2d/0xa0
> > tb_cfg_request_work+0x33/0x80
> > worker_thread+0x386/0x8f0
> > kthread+0xed/0x110
> > ret_from_fork+0x38/0x50
> > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
> >
> > The circumstances are unclear, however, the theory is that
> > tb_cfg_request_work() can be scheduled twice for a request:
> > first time via frame.callback from ring_work() and second
> > time from tb_cfg_request(). Both times kworkers will execute
> > tb_cfg_request_dequeue(), which results in double list_del()
> > from the ctl->request_queue (the list poison deference hints
> > at it: 0xdead000000000122).
>
> I remember seeing similar but it was long time ago.
Another possibility probably can be tb_cfg_request_sync()
tb_cfg_request_sync()
tb_cfg_request()
schedule_work(&req->work) -> tb_cfg_request_dequeue()
tb_cfg_request_cancel()
schedule_work(&req->work) -> tb_cfg_request_dequeue()
[..]
> > mutex_lock(&ctl->request_queue_lock);
> > - list_del(&req->list);
> > + if (!test_bit(TB_CFG_REQUEST_ACTIVE, &req->flags)) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&ctl->request_queue_lock);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_del_init(&req->list);
>
> Why this change? We are not putting the req back to the list anymore.
Purely just to be safe. Do you want me to resend without that
line?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists