linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Log dwc3 instance name in traces

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: <745a2b9c-078d-45eb-97a7-3a27a4bc5191@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 14:39:26 +0530
From: Prashanth K <prashanth.k@....qualcomm.com>
To: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: Log dwc3 instance name in traces



On 9/4/2025 5:30 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025, Prashanth K wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/3/2025 5:14 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2025, Prashanth K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/29/2025 4:18 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025, Prashanth K wrote:
>>>>>> When multiple DWC3 controllers are being used, trace events from
>>>>>> different instances get mixed up making debugging difficult as
>>>>>> there's no way to distinguish which instance generated the trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Append the device name to trace events to clearly identify the
>>>>>> source instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we print the base address instead of the device name? This will be
>>>>> consistent across different device names, and it will be easier to
>>>>> create filter.
>>>>>
>>>> Did you mean to print the iomem (base address) directly?
>>>> I think using device name is more readable, in most cases device name
>>>> would contain the base address also. Let me know if you are pointing to
>>>> something else.>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I mean the device base address. PCI devices won't have the base
>>> address as part of the device name.
>>>
>> But the base address (void __iomem *base) wouldn't be helpful.
>> Using the base address, i guess we would be able to differentiate the
>> traces when there are multiple instances, but it wouldn't help us
>> identify which controller instance generated which trace.
>>
>> And for PCI devices, i agree that it doesn't have  address in device
>> name, but i think we should be able to identify the correct instance
>> based on the bus/device numbers, right ?
>>
> 
> We may not have the PCI domain numbers if it's a child device as in the
> case of dwc3-pci or dwc3-haps.
> 
> The base address _does_ tell you exactly which device the tracepoints
> correspond to. The device name is inconsistent between different device
> types and only relevant if we have access to the system to know which
> name belongs to which instance.

Yes, I agree that device name would be inconsistent for different for
PCI (and HAPS) devices. But IMO using base address (virtual) would just
make it more harder to read and identify the instance.

Perhaps we can cache the register addr and use it, what do you think?
Here we can at least differentiate the instances based on HW addr.

snprintf(dwc->inst, sizeof(dwc->inst), "0x%08llx", (unsigned long
long)res->start);
dev_info(dwc->dev, "addr:%s\n", dwc->inst);

Output --> [    4.521746] dwc3 a600000.usb: addr:0x0a600000
Regards,
Prashanth K