[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ea8b432-4968-1616-eff9-48a2689dd3ce@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:29:12 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: phy: Correctly process PHY_HALTED in
phy_stop_machine()"
On 08/31/2017 11:12 AM, Mason wrote:
> On 31/08/2017 19:53, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 08/31/2017 10:49 AM, Mason wrote:
>>> On 31/08/2017 18:57, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> And the race is between phy_detach() setting phydev->attached_dev = NULL
>>>> and phy_state_machine() running in PHY_HALTED state and calling
>>>> netif_carrier_off().
>>>
>>> I must be missing something.
>>> (Since a thread cannot race against itself.)
>>>
>>> phy_disconnect calls phy_stop_machine which
>>> 1) stops the work queue from running in a separate thread
>>> 2) calls phy_state_machine *synchronously*
>>> which runs the PHY_HALTED case with everything well-defined
>>> end of phy_stop_machine
>>>
>>> phy_disconnect only then calls phy_detach()
>>> which makes future calls of phy_state_machine perilous.
>>>
>>> This all happens in the same thread, so I'm not yet
>>> seeing where the race happens?
>>
>> The race is as described in David's earlier email, so let's recap:
>>
>> Thread 1 Thread 2
>> phy_disconnect()
>> phy_stop_interrupts()
>> phy_stop_machine()
>> phy_state_machine()
>> -> queue_delayed_work()
>> phy_detach()
>> phy_state_machine()
>> -> netif_carrier_off()
>>
>> If phy_detach() finishes earlier than the workqueue had a chance to be
>> scheduled and process PHY_HALTED again, then we trigger the NULL pointer
>> de-reference.
>>
>> workqueues are not tasklets, the CPU scheduling them gets no guarantee
>> they will run on the same CPU.
>
> Something does not add up.
>
> The synchronous call to phy_state_machine() does:
>
> case PHY_HALTED:
> if (phydev->link) {
> phydev->link = 0;
> netif_carrier_off(phydev->attached_dev);
> phy_adjust_link(phydev);
> do_suspend = true;
> }
>
> then sets phydev->link = 0; therefore subsequent calls to
> phy_state_machin() will be no-op.
Actually you are right, once phydev->link is set to 0 these would become
no-ops. Still scratching my head as to what happens for David then...
>
> Also, queue_delayed_work() is only called in polling mode.
> David stated that he's using interrupt mode.
Right that's confusing too now. David can you check if you tree has:
49d52e8108a21749dc2114b924c907db43358984 ("net: phy: handle state
correctly in phy_stop_machine")
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists