[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aICrWl2TTTInbfT8@w447anl.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 09:29:03 +0000
From: John Ernberg <john.ernberg@...ia.se>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: usbnet: Avoid potential RCU stall on LINK_CHANGE
event
Hi Jakub,
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 04:18:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 09:07:26 +0000 John Ernberg wrote:
> > > Thanks for the analysis, I think I may have misread the code.
> > > What I was saying is that we are restoring the carrier while
> > > we are still processing the previous carrier off event in
> > > the workqueue. My thinking was that if we deferred the
> > > netif_carrier_on() to the workqueue this race couldn't happen.
> > >
> > > usbnet_bh() already checks netif_carrier_ok() - we're kinda duplicating
> > > the carrier state with this RX_PAUSED workaround.
> > >
> > > I don't feel strongly about this, but deferring the carrier_on()
> > > the the workqueue would be a cleaner solution IMO.
> > >
> >
> > I've been thinking about this idea, but I'm concerned for the opposite
> > direction. I cannot think of a way to fully guarantee that the carrier
> > isn't turned on again incorrectly if an off gets queued.
> >
> > The most I came up with was adding an extra flag bit to set carrier on,
> > and then test_and_clear_bit() it in the __handle_link_change() function.
> > And also clear_bit() in the usbnet_link_change() function if an off
> > arrives. I cannot convince myself that there isn't a way for that to go
> > sideways. But perhaps that would be robust enough?
>
> I think it should be robust enough.. Unless my grep skills are failing
> me - no drivers which call usbnet_link_change() twiddle the link state
> directly.
>
> Give it a go, if you think your initial patch is cleaner -- it's fine.
>
Apologies for the delay, I was stuck in a higher priority issue.
I've tested this approach and it looks promising. Will send this approach
as a v2 later today.
Thank you for the guidance, very much appreciated.
Best regards // John Ernberg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists