On 31/08/2017 20:29, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 08/31/2017 11:12 AM, Mason wrote:
On 31/08/2017 19:53, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 08/31/2017 10:49 AM, Mason wrote:
On 31/08/2017 18:57, Florian Fainelli wrote:
And the race is between phy_detach() setting phydev->attached_dev = NULL
and phy_state_machine() running in PHY_HALTED state and calling
netif_carrier_off().
I must be missing something.
(Since a thread cannot race against itself.)
phy_disconnect calls phy_stop_machine which
1) stops the work queue from running in a separate thread
2) calls phy_state_machine *synchronously*
which runs the PHY_HALTED case with everything well-defined
end of phy_stop_machine
phy_disconnect only then calls phy_detach()
which makes future calls of phy_state_machine perilous.
This all happens in the same thread, so I'm not yet
seeing where the race happens?
The race is as described in David's earlier email, so let's recap:
Thread 1 Thread 2
phy_disconnect()
phy_stop_interrupts()
phy_stop_machine()
phy_state_machine()
-> queue_delayed_work()
phy_detach()
phy_state_machine()
-> netif_carrier_off()
If phy_detach() finishes earlier than the workqueue had a chance to be
scheduled and process PHY_HALTED again, then we trigger the NULL pointer
de-reference.
workqueues are not tasklets, the CPU scheduling them gets no guarantee
they will run on the same CPU.
Something does not add up.
The synchronous call to phy_state_machine() does:
case PHY_HALTED:
if (phydev->link) {
phydev->link = 0;
netif_carrier_off(phydev->attached_dev);
phy_adjust_link(phydev);
do_suspend = true;
}
then sets phydev->link = 0; therefore subsequent calls to
phy_state_machin() will be no-op.
Actually you are right, once phydev->link is set to 0 these would become
no-ops. Still scratching my head as to what happens for David then...
Also, queue_delayed_work() is only called in polling mode.
David stated that he's using interrupt mode.
Right that's confusing too now. David can you check if you tree has:
49d52e8108a21749dc2114b924c907db43358984 ("net: phy: handle state
correctly in phy_stop_machine")
Hello David,
A week ago, you wrote about my patch:
"This is broken. Please revert."
I assume you tested the revert locally, and that reverting did make
the crash disappear. Is that correct?
The reason I ask is because the analysis you provided contains some
flaws, as noted above. But, if reverting my patch did fix your issue,
then perhaps understanding *why* is unimportant.
I'm a bit baffled that it took less than 90 minutes for your request
to be approved, and the patch reverted in all branches, before I even
had a chance to comment.
Regards.
