lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] driver core: Break infinite loop when deferred probe can't be satisfied
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:01:22PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 25/03/2020 12:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:29:01PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:38 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > Consider the following scenario.
> > > >
> > > > The main driver of USB OTG controller (dwc3-pci), which has the following
> > > > functional dependencies on certain platform:
> > > > - ULPI (tusb1210)
> > > > - extcon (tested with extcon-intel-mrfld)
> > > >
> > > > Note, that first driver, tusb1210, is available at the moment of
> > > > dwc3-pci probing, while extcon-intel-mrfld is built as a module and
> > > > won't appear till user space does something about it.
> > > >
> > > > This is depicted by kernel configuration excerpt:
> > > >
> > > > CONFIG_PHY_TUSB1210=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3_ULPI=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3_DUAL_ROLE=y
> > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3_PCI=y
> > > > CONFIG_EXTCON_INTEL_MRFLD=m
> > > >
> > > > In the Buildroot environment the modules are probed by alphabetical ordering
> > > > of their modaliases. The latter comes to the case when USB OTG driver will be
> > > > probed first followed by extcon one.
> > > >
> > > > So, if the platform anticipates extcon device to be appeared, in the above case
> > > > we will get deferred probe of USB OTG, because of ordering.
> > > >
> > > > Since current implementation, done by the commit 58b116bce136 ("drivercore:
> > > > deferral race condition fix") counts the amount of triggered deferred probe,
> > > > we never advance the situation -- the change makes it to be an infinite loop.
> > >
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > > I'm trying to understand this sequence of steps. Sorry if the questions
> > > are stupid -- I'm not very familiar with USB/PCI stuff.
> >
> > Thank you for looking into this. My answer below.
> >
> > As a first thing I would like to tell that there is another example of bad
> > behaviour of deferred probe with no relation to USB. The proposed change also
> > fixes that one (however, less possible to find in real life).
> >
> > > > ---8<---8<---
> > > >
> > > > [ 22.187127] driver_deferred_probe_trigger <<< 1
> > > >
> > > > ...here is the late initcall triggers deferred probe...
> > > >
> > > > [ 22.191725] platform dwc3.0.auto: deferred_probe_work_func in deferred list
> > > >
> > > > ...dwc3.0.auto is the only device in the deferred list...
> > >
> > > Ok, dwc3.0.auto is the only unprobed device at this point?
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > > [ 22.198727] platform dwc3.0.auto: deferred_probe_work_func 1 <<< counter 1
> > > >
> > > > ...the counter before mutex is unlocked is kept the same...
> > > >
> > > > [ 22.205663] platform dwc3.0.auto: Retrying from deferred list
> > > >
> > > > ...mutes has been unlocked, we try to re-probe the driver...
> > > >
> > > > [ 22.211487] bus: 'platform': driver_probe_device: matched device dwc3.0.auto with driver dwc3
> > > > [ 22.220060] bus: 'platform': really_probe: probing driver dwc3 with device dwc3.0.auto
> > > > [ 22.238735] bus: 'ulpi': driver_probe_device: matched device dwc3.0.auto.ulpi with driver tusb1210
> > > > [ 22.247743] bus: 'ulpi': really_probe: probing driver tusb1210 with device dwc3.0.auto.ulpi
> > > > [ 22.256292] driver: 'tusb1210': driver_bound: bound to device 'dwc3.0.auto.ulpi'
> > > > [ 22.263723] driver_deferred_probe_trigger <<< 2
> > > >
> > > > ...the dwc3.0.auto probes ULPI, we got successful bound and bumped counter...
> > > >
> > > > [ 22.268304] bus: 'ulpi': really_probe: bound device dwc3.0.auto.ulpi to driver tusb1210
> > >
> > > So where did this dwc3.0.auto.ulpi come from?
> >
> > > Looks like the device is created by dwc3_probe() through this call flow:
> > > dwc3_probe() -> dwc3_core_init() -> dwc3_core_ulpi_init() ->
> > > dwc3_ulpi_init() -> ulpi_register_interface() -> ulpi_register()
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > > [ 22.276697] platform dwc3.0.auto: Driver dwc3 requests probe deferral
> > >
> > > Can you please point me to which code patch actually caused the probe
> > > deferral?
> >
> > Sure, it's in drd.c.
> >
> > if (device_property_read_string(dev, "linux,extcon-name", &name) == 0) {
> > edev = extcon_get_extcon_dev(name);
> > if (!edev)
> > return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > return edev;
> > }
> >
> > > > ...but extcon driver is still missing...
> > > >
> > > > [ 22.283174] platform dwc3.0.auto: Added to deferred list
> > > > [ 22.288513] platform dwc3.0.auto: driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger local counter: 1 new counter 2
> > >
> > > I'm not fully aware of all the USB implications, but if extcon is
> > > needed, why can't that check be done before we add and probe the ulpi
> > > device? That'll avoid this whole "fake" probing and avoid the counter
> > > increase. And avoid the need for this patch that's touching the code
> > > code that's already a bit delicate.
> >
> > > Also, with my limited experience with all the possible drivers in the
> > > kernel, it's weird that the ulpi device is added and probed before we
> > > make sure the parent device (dwc3.0.auto) can actually probe
> > > successfully.
> >
> > As I said above the deferred probe trigger has flaw on its own.
> > Even if we fix for USB case, there is (and probably will be) others.
>
> Right here is the driver design bug. A driver's probe() hook should *not*
> return -EPROBE_DEFER after already creating child devices which may have
> already been probed.

Any documentation statement for this requirement?

By the way, I may imagine other mechanisms that probe the driver on other CPU
at the same time (let's consider parallel modprobes). The current code has a
flaw with that.

> It can be solved by refactoring the driver probe routine. If a resource is
> required to be present, then check that it is available early; before
> registering child devices.

We fix one and leave others.

> The proposed solution to modify driver core is fragile and susceptible to
> side effects from other probe paths. I don't think it is the right approach.

Have you tested it on your case? Does it fix the issue?

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-26 17:32    [W:0.172 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site