Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] usb: udc: core: hide struct usb_gadget_driver to gadget driver

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:37:34AM +0800, linyyuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2021-06-20 21:47, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 11:53:18AM +0800, linyyuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On 2021-06-20 11:46, linyyuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > On 2021-06-20 10:13, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 11:43:08PM +0800, Linyu Yuan wrote:
> > > > > > currently most gadget driver have a pointer to save
> > > > > > struct usb_gadget_driver from upper layer,
> > > > > > it allow upper layer set and unset of the pointer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there is race that upper layer unset the pointer first,
> > > > > > but gadget driver use the pointer later,
> > > > > > and it cause system crash due to NULL pointer access.
> > > > >
> > > > > This race has already been fixed in Greg's usb-next branch.  See
> > > > > commit
> > > > > 7dc0c55e9f30 ("USB: UDC core: Add udc_async_callbacks gadget op") and
> > > > > following commits 04145a03db9d ("USB: UDC: Implement
> > > > > udc_async_callbacks in dummy-hcd") and b42e8090ba93 ("USB: UDC:
> > > > > Implement udc_async_callbacks in net2280").
> > > > >
> > > > thanks, this is better, lower driver only need change several places.
> > > > > You just need to write a corresponding patch implementing the
> > > > > async_callbacks op for dwc3.
> > > > yes, i will do.
> > > > >
> > > Alan, i want to discuss your suggestion again in b42e8090ba93 ("USB:
> > > UDC:
> > > Implement udc_async_callbacks in net2280")
> > > 
> > > +                       if (dev->async_callbacks) { ----> if CPU1
> > > saw this
> > > is true
> > > +                               spin_unlock(&dev->lock); ---> CPU2
> > > get lock
> > > after this unlock,
> > > it will set async_callbacks to false, then follow call also crash,
> > > right ?
> > > +                               tmp = dev->driver->setup(&dev->gadget,
> > > &u.r);
> > > +                               spin_lock(&dev->lock);
> > > +                       }
> > 
> > No, this is okay.  The reason is because usb_gadget_remove_driver (CPU2
> > in your example) does this:
> > 
> >         usb_gadget_disable_async_callbacks(udc);
> >         if (udc->gadget->irq)
> >                 synchronize_irq(udc->gadget->irq);
> >         udc->driver->unbind(udc->gadget);
> >         usb_gadget_udc_stop(udc);
> > 
> > The synchronize_irq call will make CPU2 wait until CPU1 has finished
> > handling the interrupt for the setup packet.  The system won't crash,
> > because dev->driver->setup will be called before unbind and udc_stop
> > instead of after.

> still several question,
> 1. how about suspend calll dev->driver->suspend ?

The same reasoning applies.  The synchronize_irq call will make CPU2 
wait until CPU1 has finished handling the interrupt for the USB bus 
suspend.  The system won't crash, because dev->driver->suspend will be 
called before unbind and udc_stop instead of after.

> 2. will 04145a03db9d ("USB: UDC: Implement udc_async_callbacks in
> dummy-hcd") backport to LTS branch ?

None of these commits are marked for back-porting to the -stable 
kernels.  The race they fix does not occur often.

If you the commits to be applied to the LTS stable kernels, you can ask 
Greg KH to do it.

> 3. how about coding style ? so following code
> if (foo->gadget_driver && foo->gadget_driver->resume)
> change to
> if (foo->asnyc_callbacks && foo->gadget_driver->resume)

I don't understand this question.

Alan Stern