Hi Jack, Peter
On 24.09.2018 19:37, Jack Pham wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:48:43AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
Type-C-to-A cable, and the USB3 HCD has already been NULL at that time.
The oops log like below:
[681.782288] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.1.auto: remove, state 1
[681.787490] usb usb4: USB disconnect, device number 1
[681.792808] usb 4-1: USB disconnect, device number 2
[681.818089] xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.1.auto: USB bus 4 deregistered
[681.823803] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
address 000000a0
[681.823806] Mem abort info:
[681.823809] Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[681.823811] SET = 0, FnV = 0
[681.823813] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[681.823814] Data abort info:
[681.823816] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004
[681.823818] CM = 0, WnR = 0
[681.823822] user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgd = ffff8000ae3fd000
[681.823824] [00000000000000a0] *pgd=0000000000000000
[681.823829] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[681.823832] Modules linked in: 8021q garp stp mrp crc32_ce qca6174(O)
crct10dif_ce galcore(O)
[681.823849] CPU: 0 PID: 94 Comm: kworker/0:1 Tainted: G O
4.14.62-imx_4.14.y+gcd63def #1
[681.823851] Hardware name: Freescale i.MX8MQ EVK (DT)
[681.823862] Workqueue: events_freezable __dwc3_set_mode
[681.823865] task: ffff8000b8a18000 task.stack: ffff00000a010000
[681.823872] PC is at xhci_irq+0x5fc/0x14b8
[681.823875] LR is at xhci_irq+0x3c/0x14b8
<snip>
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c
index f0a99aa0ac58..2dc5176b79d0 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c
@@ -2680,7 +2680,8 @@ irqreturn_t xhci_irq(struct usb_hcd *hcd)
}
if (xhci->xhc_state & XHCI_STATE_DYING ||
- xhci->xhc_state & XHCI_STATE_HALTED) {
+ xhci->xhc_state & XHCI_STATE_HALTED ||
+ xhci->xhc_state & XHCI_STATE_REMOVING) {
xhci_dbg(xhci, "xHCI dying, ignoring interrupt. "
"Shouldn't IRQs be disabled?\n");
/* Clear the event handler busy flag (RW1C);
We also noticed the same crash as you found, and tried to fix it in a
similar way, but noticed that this still allows a memory leak to happen.
It seems from commit fe190ed0d602a ("xhci: Do not halt the host until
both HCD have disconnected their devices.") this was added to
xhci_stop(), and is the reason we encounter the NULL pointer in
xhci_irq() when it tries to access xhci->shared_hcd.
+ /* Only halt host and free memory after both hcds are removed */
if (!usb_hcd_is_primary_hcd(hcd)) {
+ /* usb core will free this hcd shortly, unset pointer */
+ xhci->shared_hcd = NULL;
mutex_unlock(&xhci->mutex);
return;
}
While your fix will simply abort the xhci_irq() function if it
encounters XHCI_STATE_REMOVING, during xhci_plat_remove():
static int xhci_plat_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
{
struct usb_hcd *hcd = platform_get_drvdata(dev);
struct xhci_hcd *xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd);
struct clk *clk = xhci->clk;
struct clk *reg_clk = xhci->reg_clk;
xhci->xhc_state |= XHCI_STATE_REMOVING;
usb_remove_hcd(xhci->shared_hcd);
^^^^^^^^^ calls xhci_stop() and sets shared_hcd=NULL
usb_phy_shutdown(hcd->usb_phy);
usb_remove_hcd(hcd);
usb_put_hcd(xhci->shared_hcd);
^^^^^^^^^^^ shared_hcd==NULL, so this is a no-op
Since usb_put_hcd() doesn't get called for shared_hcd, we end up
with one additional kref count and hence a leak.
Nice catch, this same issue exists in
xhci_pci_remove()
tegra_xusb_remove()
xhci_mtk_remove()
xhci_histb_remove()
Wondering if we need to also remove the xhci->shared_hcd = NULL from
xhci_stop(), in addition to your patches. Thoughts?
At some point the xhci->shared_hcd needs to be set NULL, it can be done in
in the xhci_plat_remove(), xhci_pci_remove() and the similar remove functions
after calling usb_remove_hcd(). we can't rely on xhci->shared_hcd after it
has been removed.
The xHC controller is stopped and interrupts disabled only after the primary
hcd (USB2) is removed, this is because usb core will try to cleanly flush last
USB2
URBs and take down the last endpoints when the USB2 usb_remove_hcd(hcd) is
called.
We need a running xHC controller to do this.
This means we can get interrupts we need to handle even if the shared_hcd is
removed.
So I think we still need to handle interrupts even if XHCI_STATE_REMOVING flag
is set.
I think we also need to make the xhci interrupt handler capable of handling
situations
where xhci->shared_hcd is set to NULL
Does this sound reasonable?
-Mathias
