Re: [PATCH v2] usbip: give back URBs for unsent unlink requests during cleanup
From: Anirudh Rayabharam
Date: Wed Aug 11 2021 - 09:59:17 EST
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 05:25:51PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 8/6/21 12:13 PM, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote:
> > In vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(), the URBs for unsent unlink requests are
> > not given back. This sometimes causes usb_kill_urb to wait indefinitely
> > for that urb to be given back. syzbot has reported a hung task issue [1]
> > for this.
> >
> > To fix this, give back the urbs corresponding to unsent unlink requests
> > (unlink_tx list) similar to how urbs corresponding to unanswered unlink
> > requests (unlink_rx list) are given back. Since the code is almost the
> > same, extract it into a new function and call it for both unlink_rx and
> > unlink_tx lists.
> >
>
> Let's not do the refactor - let's first fix the problem and then the refactor.
Sure, I will make it a two patch series where the first one fixes the
problem and the second one does the refactor.
>
> > [1]: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=08f12df95ae7da69814e64eb5515d5a85ed06b76
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Tested-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > Use WARN_ON() instead of BUG() when unlink_list is neither unlink_tx nor
> > unlink_rx.
> >
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210806164015.25263-1-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > index 4ba6bcdaa8e9..67e638f4c455 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > @@ -945,7 +945,8 @@ static int vhci_urb_dequeue(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb, int status)
> > return 0;
> > }
> > -static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > +static void __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(struct vhci_device *vdev,
> > + struct list_head *unlink_list)
> > {
> > struct vhci_hcd *vhci_hcd = vdev_to_vhci_hcd(vdev);
> > struct usb_hcd *hcd = vhci_hcd_to_hcd(vhci_hcd);
> > @@ -953,23 +954,23 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > struct vhci_unlink *unlink, *tmp;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > + if (WARN(unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_tx
> > + && unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_rx,
> > + "Invalid list passed to __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list\n"))
> > + return;
> > +
>
> With this change, this will be only place unlink_rx is used without
> vdev->priv_lock hold? Please explain why this is safe.
Well, this doesn't read or modify the contents of unlink_rx and unlink_tx.
So, it looks safe to me. Let me know if I'm missing something here.
>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&vhci->lock, flags);
> > spin_lock(&vdev->priv_lock);
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(unlink, tmp, &vdev->unlink_tx, list) {
> > - pr_info("unlink cleanup tx %lu\n", unlink->unlink_seqnum);
> > - list_del(&unlink->list);
> > - kfree(unlink);
> > - }
> > -
> > - while (!list_empty(&vdev->unlink_rx)) {
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(unlink, tmp, unlink_list, list) {
> > struct urb *urb;
> > - unlink = list_first_entry(&vdev->unlink_rx, struct vhci_unlink,
> > - list);
> > -
> > - /* give back URB of unanswered unlink request */
> > - pr_info("unlink cleanup rx %lu\n", unlink->unlink_seqnum);
> > + if (unlink_list == &vdev->unlink_tx)
> > + pr_info("unlink cleanup tx %lu\n",
> > + unlink->unlink_seqnum);
> > + else
> > + pr_info("unlink cleanup rx %lu\n",
> > + unlink->unlink_seqnum);
> > urb = pickup_urb_and_free_priv(vdev, unlink->unlink_seqnum);
> > if (!urb) {
> > @@ -1001,6 +1002,24 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vhci->lock, flags);
> > }
> > +static inline void vhci_cleanup_unlink_tx(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > +{
> > + __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(vdev, &vdev->unlink_tx);
>
> With this change, this will be only place unlink_rx is used without
> vdev->priv_lock hold? Please explain why this is safe.
>
> > +}
> > +
>
> Is there a need for this layer?
>
> > +static inline void vhci_cleanup_unlink_rx(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > +{
> > + __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(vdev, &vdev->unlink_rx);
>
> With this change, this will be only place unlink_rx is used without
> vdev->priv_lock hold? Please explain why this is safe.
>
> > +}
> > +
> Is there a need for this layer?
I added these wrappers purely for convenience. There is no other purpose.
Would you prefer this patch without the wrappers?
Thanks for the review!
- Anirudh.