Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: hci_sync: clear cmd_sync_work_list when power off

From: Jiayang Mao
Date: Tue Dec 03 2024 - 12:19:52 EST


Hi Luiz,

On 2024/12/3 4:41, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
Hi Jiayang,

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 12:51 PM Jiayang Mao <quic_jiaymao@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Clear the remaining command in cmd_sync_work_list when BT is
performing power off. In some cases, this list is not empty after
power off. BT host will try to send more HCI commands.
This can cause unexpected results.

What commands are in the queue?

If turning off BT during pairing, "hci_acl_create_conn_sync" has chances
to be left in the queue. Then the driver will try to send the HCI
command of creating connection but failed.

Signed-off-by: Jiayang Mao <quic_jiaymao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c
index c86f4e42e..bc622d074 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c
@@ -5139,6 +5139,7 @@ int hci_dev_close_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev)
{
bool auto_off;
int err = 0;
+ struct hci_cmd_sync_work_entry *entry, *tmp;

bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "");

@@ -5258,6 +5259,11 @@ int hci_dev_close_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev)
clear_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags);
hci_sock_dev_event(hdev, HCI_DEV_CLOSE);

+ mutex_lock(&hdev->cmd_sync_work_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &hdev->cmd_sync_work_list, list)
+ _hci_cmd_sync_cancel_entry(hdev, entry, -ECANCELED);
+ mutex_unlock(&hdev->cmd_sync_work_lock);

Seems equivalent to hci_cmd_sync_clear, that said we should have been
running with that lock already, also if there is a sequence like
close/open the close may cancel the subsequent open, so I don't think
we should be canceling every subsequent callback like this.

In hci_cmd_sync_clear, the work cmd_sync_work and reenable_adv_work are
canceled. hci_cmd_sync_clear is not directly called because these two
works should not be canceled during power off.
Do you mean the added code should be moved to other functions to avoid
the risk of lock?

Yes. This change lacks considering sequence of close/open. I will update
the implementation to ensure it does not remove the opening and the
operations after re-opening.

/* After this point our queues are empty and no tasks are scheduled. */
hdev->close(hdev);

--
2.25.1