Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: phy: Correctly process PHY_HALTED in phy_stop_machine()"
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-08-31 18:29:19
On 08/31/2017 11:12 AM, Mason wrote:
On 31/08/2017 19:53, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
On 08/31/2017 10:49 AM, Mason wrote:quoted
On 31/08/2017 18:57, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
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")
--
Florian