Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: ufs: ufs-exynos: implement exynos isr
To:     Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com,
        avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, beanhuo@micron.com,
        cang@codeaurora.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, sc.suh@samsung.com,
        hy50.seo@samsung.com, sh425.lee@samsung.com,
        bhoon95.kim@samsung.com
References: <cover.1631519695.git.kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
 <CGME20210913081152epcas2p2eac4a8dbef33164a150dccf2e282dcce@epcas2p2.samsung.com>
 <746e059782953fca6c21945297151d2bb73d3370.1631519695.git.kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Message-ID: <baf17040-70e8-d850-30cd-74944e41285d@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:23:07 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <746e059782953fca6c21945297151d2bb73d3370.1631519695.git.kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/13/21 12:55 AM, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
> This patch is to raise recovery in some abnormal
> conditions using an vendor specific interrupt
> for some cases, such as a situation that some
> contexts of a pending request in the host isn't
> the same with those of its corresponding UPIUs
> if they should have been the same exactly.
> 
> The representative case is shown like below.
> In the case, a broken UTRD entry, for internal
> coherent problem or whatever, that had smaller value
> of PRDT length than expected was transferred to the host.
> So, the host raised an interrupt of transfer complete
> even if device didn't finish its data transfer because
> the host sees a fetched version of UTRD to determine
> if data tranfer is over or not. Then the application level
> seemed to recogize this as a sort of corruption and this
> symptom led to boot failure.

How can a UTRD entry be broken? Does that perhaps indicate memory
corruption at the host side? Working around host-side memory
corruption in a driver seems wrong to me. I think the root cause
of the memory corruption should be fixed.

> +static irqreturn_t exynos_ufs_isr(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> +{
> +	struct exynos_ufs *ufs = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
> +	u32 status;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	if (!hba->priv) return IRQ_HANDLED;

Please verify patches with checkpatch before posting these on the
linux-scsi mailing list. The above if-statement does not follow the
Linux kernel coding style.

> +	if (status & RX_UPIU_HIT_ERROR) {
> +		pr_err("%s: status: 0x%08x\n", __func__, status);
> +		hba->force_reset = true;
> +		hba->force_requeue = true;
> +		scsi_schedule_eh(hba->host);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> +		return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +	}
> +	return IRQ_NONE;
> +}

So the above code unlocks the host_lock depending on whether or not
status & RX_UPIU_HIT_ERROR is true? Yikes ...

Additionally, in the above code I found the following pattern:

	unsigned long flags;
	[ ... ]
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);

Such code is ALWAYS wrong. The value of the 'flags' argument passed to
spin_unlock_irqrestore() must come from spin_lock_irqsave().

Bart.