lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i2c: iproc: fix race between client unreg and isr
From
Date

On 7/22/2020 3:41 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>>> + synchronize_irq(iproc_i2c->irq);
>>
>> If one takes a look at the I2C slave ISR routine, there are places where
>> IRQ can be re-enabled in the ISR itself. What happens after we mask all
>> slave interrupt and when 'synchronize_irq' is called, which I suppose is
>> meant to wait for inflight interrupt to finish where there's a chance
>> the interrupt can be re-enable again? How is one supposed to deal with that?
>
> I encountered the same problem with the i2c-rcar driver before I left
> for my holidays.
>

I think the following sequence needs to be implemented to make this
safe, i.e., after 'synchronize_irq', no further slave interrupt will be
fired.

In 'bcm_iproc_i2c_unreg_slave':

1. Set an atomic variable 'unreg_slave' (I'm bad in names so please come
up with a better name than this)

2. Disable all slave interrupts

3. synchronize_irq

4. Set slave to NULL

5. Erase slave addresses

In the ISR routine, it should always check against 'unreg_slave' before
enabling any slave interrupt. If 'unreg_slave' is set, no slave
interrupt should be re-enabled from within the ISR.

I think the above sequence can ensure no further slave interrupt after
'synchronize_irq'. I suggested using an atomic variable instead of
variable + spinlock due to the way how sync irq works, i.e., "If you use
this function while holding a resource the IRQ handler may need you will
deadlock.".

Thanks,

Ray

>>> + iproc_i2c->slave = NULL;
>>> +
>>> /* Erase the slave address programmed */
>>> tmp = iproc_i2c_rd_reg(iproc_i2c, S_CFG_SMBUS_ADDR_OFFSET);
>>> tmp &= ~BIT(S_CFG_EN_NIC_SMB_ADDR3_SHIFT);
>>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-22 17:53    [W:0.092 / U:0.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site