Re: [PATCH v2 19/64] dmaengine: xilinx-dma: use dma_chan BH instead of tasklets
[email protected] Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:59:09 +0000
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.dmaengine |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] request_irq() is called before channel initialization is complete, creating a race condition if an early interrupt fires. - [High] Uninitialized channel access in xilinx_mcdma_irq_handler during probe. - [High] Recursive spinlock deadlock when running dependencies on the same DMA channel. -- --- Patch [19]: [PATCH v2 19/64] dmaengine: xilinx-dma: use dma_chan BH instead of tasklets --- commit 2b1e6b23fed3e56575f2e8169196ee83cbca26e8 Author: Allen Pais <[email protected]> dmaengine: xilinx-dma: use dma_chan BH instead of tasklets This patch replaces the per-channel tasklet with the shared dma_chan BH helper. The handler continues to run in softirq context while dmaengine owns the common scheduling and teardown mechanism. > diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c > index 404235c173538..bf9f22ed12659 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c [ ... ] > @@ -1115,11 +1113,12 @@ static void xilinx_dma_chan_desc_cleanup(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan) > > /** > * xilinx_dma_do_tasklet - Schedule completion tasklet > - * @t: Pointer to the Xilinx DMA channel structure > + * @c: Pointer to the Xilinx DMA channel structure > */ > -static void xilinx_dma_do_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > +static void xilinx_dma_do_tasklet(struct dma_chan *c) > { > - struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan = from_tasklet(chan, t, tasklet); > + struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan = container_of(c, > + struct xilinx_dma_chan, common); > > xilinx_dma_chan_desc_cleanup(chan); > } [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but can this lead to a recursive spinlock deadlock? Looking at xilinx_dma_chan_desc_cleanup(), the channel lock is acquired before running dependencies: xilinx_dma_chan_desc_cleanup() { ... spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags); ... dma_run_dependencies(&desc->async_tx); ... } If a dependent transaction belongs to the same channel, dma_run_dependencies() will invoke xilinx_dma_tx_submit(), which unconditionally attempts to acquire the exact same chan->lock. Since standard spinlocks are not recursive, would this cause the CPU to deadlock? [ ... ] > @@ -1898,7 +1897,7 @@ static irqreturn_t xilinx_mcdma_irq_handler(int irq, void *data) > spin_unlock(&chan->lock); > } > > - tasklet_hi_schedule(&chan->tasklet); > + dma_chan_schedule_bh(&chan->common); > return IRQ_HANDLED; > } [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but could this handler dereference a NULL pointer during device probe? If a shared interrupt fires while the driver is still probing channels, xilinx_mcdma_irq_handler() might compute a chan_offset for a channel that has not been probed yet: xilinx_mcdma_irq_handler() { ... chan = chan->xdev->chan[chan_offset]; status = dma_ctrl_read(chan, XILINX_MCDMA_CHAN_SR_OFFSET(chan->tdest)); ... } If the channel array entry is still NULL, would dma_ctrl_read() trigger a crash? [ ... ] > @@ -3075,8 +3074,7 @@ static int xilinx_dma_chan_probe(struct xilinx_dma_device *xdev, > str_enabled_disabled(chan->has_sg)); > } > > - /* Initialize the tasklet */ > - tasklet_setup(&chan->tasklet, xilinx_dma_do_tasklet); > + dma_chan_init_bh(&chan->common, xilinx_dma_do_tasklet); [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but does calling request_irq() earlier in xilinx_dma_chan_probe() create a race condition here? In xilinx_dma_chan_probe(), request_irq() is called with IRQF_SHARED before chan->start_transfer and the bottom-half work are initialized: xilinx_dma_chan_probe() { ... err = request_irq(chan->irq, xdev->dma_config->irq_handler, IRQF_SHARED, "xilinx-dma-controller", chan); ... chan->start_transfer = xilinx_dma_start_transfer; ... dma_chan_init_bh(&chan->common, xilinx_dma_do_tasklet); ... } If an interrupt fires on the shared line immediately after request_irq() succeeds, the handler could try to invoke chan->start_transfer() or dma_chan_schedule_bh() while they are still uninitialized. Should the IRQ registration be moved after the channel is fully initialized? -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=19