Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jul 2020 14:54:45 +0530 | From | Vinod Koul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] dmaengine: check device and channel list for empty |
| |
On 09-07-20, 08:23, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 7/8/2020 10:35 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > On 07. 07. 20, 17:42, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 7/6/2020 11:05 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > > On 26. 06. 20, 20:09, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > > > Check dma device list and channel list for empty before iterate as the > > > > > iteration function assume the list to be not empty. With devices and > > > > > channels now being hot pluggable this is a condition that needs to be > > > > > checked. Otherwise it can cause the iterator to spin forever. > > > > > > > > Could you be a little bit more specific how this can spin forever? I.e. > > > > can you attach a stacktrace of such a behaviour? > > > > > > I can't seem to find the original splat that lead me to the conclusion > > > of it's spinning forever. As I recall, the issue seems to produce > > > different splats and not always consistent in being reproduced. Here's a > > > partial splat that was tracked by the internal bug database. Since with > > > the dma device and channel list being are hot added and removed, the > > > device and channel lists can be empty. The list_entry() and friends > > > expect the list to not be empty (according to header comment), I added > > > the check to ensure that isn't the case before using them in dmaengine. > > > > Yes, the comment states that as it is true: you receive a > > wild/non-checkable pointer if you do list_entry on an empty list. BUT > > have you actually read what I wrote: > > > > > > As in the empty case, "&pos->member" is "head" (look into > > > > list_for_each_entry) and the for loop should loop exactly zero times. > > > > HERE ^^^^ > > > > > With the fix, we can no longer produce any of the splats. So maybe the > > > above was a bad description of the issue. > > > > No, not only the description, worse, the patch proper looks wrong. > > > > > [ 4216.048375] ? dma_channel_rebalance+0x7b/0x250 > > > [ 4216.056360] dma_async_device_register+0x349/0x3a0 > > > [ 4216.064604] idxd_register_dma_device+0x90/0xc0 [idxd] > > > [ 4216.073175] idxd_config_bus_probe.cold+0x7d/0x1fc [idxd] > > > > So, the good part in the patch is the fixed locking in > > dma_async_device_register. Otherwise it adds nonsense checks. So you > > fixed the issue only by a chance, by a side effect as Peter pointed out. > > Leaving aside that you broke dma_request_chan -- that could happen to > > anybody. > > > > Vinod, please drop/revert this patch. Then start over only with > > dma_async_device_register fixed locking. > > I'll start on the proper fix.
Dropped
-- ~Vinod
| |