Re: Re: Re: Re: [syzbot] INFO: rcu detected stall in tx

[Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>]

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 05:44:55PM +0000, Guido Kiener wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Stern
> > Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 3:49 PM
> > To: Kiener Guido 14DS1 <Guido.Kiener@rohde-schwarz.com>
> > >
> > > Thanks for your assessment. I agree with the general feeling. I
> > > counted about hundred specific usb drivers, so wouldn't it be better to fix the
> > problem in some of the host drivers (e.g. urb.c)?
> > > We could return an error when calling usb_submit_urb() on an erroneous pipe.
> > > I cannot estimate the side effects and we need to check all drivers
> > > again how they deal with the error situation. Maybe there are some special driver
> > that need a specialized error handling.
> > > In this case these drivers could reset the (new?) error flag to allow
> > > calling usb_submit_urb() again without error. This could work, isn't it?
> > 
> > That is feasible, although it would be an awkward approach.  As you said, the side
> > effects aren't clear.  But it might work.
> 
> Otherwise I see only the other approach to change hundred drivers and add the
> cases EPROTO, EILSEQ and ETIME in each callback handler. The usbtmc driver
> already respects the EILSEQ and ETIME, and only EPROTO is missing.
> The rest should be more a management task.
> BTW do you assume it is only a problem for INT pipes or is it also a problem
> for isochronous and bulk transfers?

All of them.  Control too.

> > Will you be able to test patches?
> 
> I only can test the USBTMC function in some different PCs. I do not have automated
> regression tests for USB drivers or Linux kernels.
> Maybe there is company who could do that.

Well then, if I do find time to write a patch, I'll ask you to try it 
out with the usbtmc driver.

Alan Stern