Re: [PATCH 1/5] thunderbolt: Fix tunnel reference leak when the DPRX work is not started
Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.asahi,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-usb,org.kernel.vger.stable |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 08:11:09AM +0200, Sven Peter wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/18/26 08:00, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 07:44:35AM +0200, Sven Peter wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 8/18/26 06:42, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 09:53:58PM +0200, Sven Peter wrote: > > > > > tb_dp_dprx_start always takes a tunnel reference which is only dropped > > > > > by dprx_work eventually. Tunnels that have no callback don't ever queue > > > > > that work and tb_dp_dprx_stop then has nothing to cancel. It however only > > > > > releases the reference if cancel_delayed_work returned true and the > > > > > reference is leaked then. > > > > Okay but we always actually pass that callback there so I guess you are > > > > hitting this because you have modified the caller in tb.c not to pass the > > > > callback, right? If that's the case then I suggest mention how you actually > > > > reproduced this whole issue. > > > > > > > > I'm thinking we should make the callback mandatory instead as we always > > > > need it for DP tunnels anyway. It should work the same also in Apple > > > > silicon (one you have the DP tunneling in place). > > > As mentioned a few lines below, > > > > --- > > > > I didn't actually hit this on hardware but found it while fixing a domain > > > > leak in the same area and that fix depends on this one. > > > > --- > > Hehe, sorry missed that one. > > No worries, maybe I should've put it into the commit message and/or cover > letter as well! > > > > > ^-- there, I didn't actually hit this. It's just that there's also a > > > tb_domain leak here (see patch 3) and when fixing that one the asymmetry > > > here just jumps out. There's nothing special my code does to tb.c , the only > > > reason DP tunnels don't work yet is because they need two separate MMIO > > > blocks (what macOS calls "DP IN PHY" and "display crossbar") and possibly > > > also the display co-processor to be up. Once that's done they should come up > > > normally. > > > > > > Tunnels discovered in tb_tunnel_discover_dp setup a DP tunnel with callback > > > = NULL but also never start the dptx_work there and I'm not familiar enough > > > with the code to know if it's possible to ever have those end up in the > > > "normal" paths which queue the dprx_work then. > > > I'm happy to also just make the callback mandatory though and just bail if > > > it's not set. > > For the discovery (happens when the boot firmware/kexec sets up the > > tunnels) DPRX negotiation is already done so we never need to do that for > > those. I think it simplifies this if we just make it mandatory. > > Okay, great, I'll look into making it mandatory for v2 then. > > > > > BTW, is this bringup stuff available somewhere already? I have M1 Mac here > > so perhaps I can at least help testing things (assuming setting these up is > > not super complex). > > Sure, the current WIP code is in > https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/commits/tbt-reset-wip/. Cool! Thanks for sharing. > It's not quite in a good shape yet and I have a few improvements in my local > tree that I can push this evening after $work. Right now only XDomain works > since pcie, dp and usb3 tunnels need more bringup work and not all cables > work because I'm not forwarding the information like Apple's NHI expects > them just yet. Understood.