On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 03:22:58PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > From: Julius Werner <jwer...@chromium.org> > > We have observed a rare cycle state desync bug after Set TR Dequeue > Pointer commands on Intel LynxPoint xHCs (resulting in an endpoint that > doesn't fetch new TRBs and thus an unresponsive USB device). It always > triggers when a previous Set TR Dequeue Pointer command has set the > pointer to the final Link TRB of a segment, and then another URB gets > enqueued and cancelled again before it can be completed. Further > investigation showed that the xHC had returned the Link TRB in the TRB > Pointer field of the Transfer Event (CC == Stopped -- Length Invalid), > but when xhci_find_new_dequeue_state() later accesses the Endpoint > Context's TR Dequeue Pointer field it is set to the first TRB of the > next segment. > > The driver expects those two values to be the same in this situation, > and uses the cycle state of the latter together with the address of the > former. This should be fine according to the XHCI specification, since > the endpoint ring should be stopped when returning the Transfer Event > and thus should not advance over the Link TRB before it gets restarted. > However, real-world XHCI implementations apparently don't really care > that much about these details, so the driver should follow a more > defensive approach to try to work around HC spec violations. > > This patch removes the stopped_trb variable that had been used to store > the TRB Pointer from the last Transfer Event of a stopped TRB. Instead, > xhci_find_new_dequeue_state() now relies only on the Endpoint Context, > requiring a small amount of additional processing to find the virtual > address corresponding to the TR Dequeue Pointer. Some other parts of the > function were slightly rearranged to better fit into this model. > > This patch should be backported to kernels as old as 2.6.31 that contain > the commit ae636747146ea97efa18e04576acd3416e2514f5 "USB: xhci: URB > cancellation support."
Ok, but: > > Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwer...@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Mathias Nyman <mathias.ny...@linux.intel.com> You don't actually add the stable@ tag here, why not? You have read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how stable kernel trees work, so why not add the label here? greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
