driver core: fw_devlink: Improve detection of overlapping cycles

[ Upstream commit 6442d79d880cf7a2fff18779265d657fef0cce4c ]

fw_devlink can detect most overlapping/intersecting cycles. However it was
missing a few corner cases because of an incorrect optimization logic that
tries to avoid repeating cycle detection for devices that are already
marked as part of a cycle.

Here's an example provided by Xu Yang (edited for clarity):

                    usb
                  +-----+
   tcpc           |     |
  +-----+         |  +--|
  |     |----------->|EP|
  |--+  |         |  +--|
  |EP|<-----------|     |
  |--+  |         |  B  |
  |     |         +-----+
  |  A  |            |
  +-----+            |
     ^     +-----+   |
     |     |     |   |
     +-----|  C  |<--+
           |     |
           +-----+
           usb-phy

Node A (tcpc) will be populated as device 1-0050.
Node B (usb) will be populated as device 38100000.usb.
Node C (usb-phy) will be populated as device 381f0040.usb-phy.

The description below uses the notation:
consumer --> supplier
child ==> parent

1. Node C is populated as device C. No cycles detected because cycle
   detection is only run when a fwnode link is converted to a device link.

2. Node B is populated as device B. As we convert B --> C into a device
   link we run cycle detection and find and mark the device link/fwnode
   link cycle:
   C--> A --> B.EP ==> B --> C

3. Node A is populated as device A. As we convert C --> A into a device
   link, we see it's already part of a cycle (from step 2) and don't run
   cycle detection. Thus we miss detecting the cycle:
   A --> B.EP ==> B --> A.EP ==> A

Looking at it another way, A depends on B in one way:
A --> B.EP ==> B

But B depends on A in two ways and we only detect the first:
B --> C --> A
B --> A.EP ==> A

To detect both of these, we remove the incorrect optimization attempt in
step 3 and run cycle detection even if the fwnode link from which the
device link is being created has already been marked as part of a cycle.

Reported-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@nxp.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/DU2PR04MB8822693748725F85DC0CB86C8C792@DU2PR04MB8822.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com/
Fixes: 3fb16866b51d ("driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust")
Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Tested-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@nxp.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240202095636.868578-3-saravanak@google.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index 191590055932..3078f44dc186 100644
--- a/drivers/base/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -2056,9 +2056,14 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
 
 	/*
 	 * SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links don't block probing and supports cycles.
-	 * So cycle detection isn't necessary and shouldn't be done.
+	 * So, one might expect that cycle detection isn't necessary for them.
+	 * However, if the device link was marked as SYNC_STATE_ONLY because
+	 * it's part of a cycle, then we still need to do cycle detection. This
+	 * is because the consumer and supplier might be part of multiple cycles
+	 * and we need to detect all those cycles.
 	 */
-	if (!(flags & DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY)) {
+	if (!device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(flags) ||
+	    flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE) {
 		device_links_write_lock();
 		if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, sup_handle)) {
 			__fwnode_link_cycle(link);