Commit 71f8a4b8 authored by Jialing Fu's avatar Jialing Fu Committed by Ulf Hansson

mmc: core: fix race condition in mmc_wait_data_done

The following panic is captured in ker3.14, but the issue still exists
in latest kernel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[   20.738217] c0 3136 (Compiler) Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference
at virtual address 00000578
......
[   20.738499] c0 3136 (Compiler) PC is at _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x60
[   20.738527] c0 3136 (Compiler) LR is at _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x60
[   20.740134] c0 3136 (Compiler) Call trace:
[   20.740165] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0008ee900>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x60
[   20.740200] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000dd024>] __wake_up+0x1c/0x54
[   20.740230] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc000639414>] mmc_wait_data_done+0x28/0x34
[   20.740262] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0006391a0>] mmc_request_done+0xa4/0x220
[   20.740314] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc000656894>] sdhci_tasklet_finish+0xac/0x264
[   20.740352] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000a2b58>] tasklet_action+0xa0/0x158
[   20.740382] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000a2078>] __do_softirq+0x10c/0x2e4
[   20.740411] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000a24bc>] irq_exit+0x8c/0xc0
[   20.740439] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc00008489c>] handle_IRQ+0x48/0xac
[   20.740469] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc000081428>] gic_handle_irq+0x38/0x7c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in SMP, "mrq" has race condition between below two paths:
path1: CPU0: <tasklet context>
  static void mmc_wait_data_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
  {
     mrq->host->context_info.is_done_rcv = true;
     //
     // If CPU0 has just finished "is_done_rcv = true" in path1, and at
     // this moment, IRQ or ICache line missing happens in CPU0.
     // What happens in CPU1 (path2)?
     //
     // If the mmcqd thread in CPU1(path2) hasn't entered to sleep mode:
     // path2 would have chance to break from wait_event_interruptible
     // in mmc_wait_for_data_req_done and continue to run for next
     // mmc_request (mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep).
     //
     // Within mmc_blk_rq_prep, mrq is cleared to 0.
     // If below line still gets host from "mrq" as the result of
     // compiler, the panic happens as we traced.
     wake_up_interruptible(&mrq->host->context_info.wait);
  }

path2: CPU1: <The mmcqd thread runs mmc_queue_thread>
  static int mmc_wait_for_data_req_done(...
  {
     ...
     while (1) {
           wait_event_interruptible(context_info->wait,
                   (context_info->is_done_rcv ||
                    context_info->is_new_req));
     	   static void mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep(...
           {
           ...
           memset(brq, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_blk_request));

This issue happens very coincidentally; however adding mdelay(1) in
mmc_wait_data_done as below could duplicate it easily.

   static void mmc_wait_data_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
   {
     mrq->host->context_info.is_done_rcv = true;
+    mdelay(1);
     wake_up_interruptible(&mrq->host->context_info.wait);
    }

At runtime, IRQ or ICache line missing may just happen at the same place
of the mdelay(1).

This patch gets the mmc_context_info at the beginning of function, it can
avoid this race condition.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJialing Fu <jlfu@marvell.com>
Tested-by: default avatarShawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
Fixes: 2220eedf ("mmc: fix async request mechanism ....")
Signed-off-by: default avatarShawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarUlf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
parent 987e05c9
......@@ -358,8 +358,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_start_bkops);
*/
static void mmc_wait_data_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
{
mrq->host->context_info.is_done_rcv = true;
wake_up_interruptible(&mrq->host->context_info.wait);
struct mmc_context_info *context_info = &mrq->host->context_info;
context_info->is_done_rcv = true;
wake_up_interruptible(&context_info->wait);
}
static void mmc_wait_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment