v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

[[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

Posted by Manoj Vishwanathan 1 year, 3 months ago

The transaction salt was being accessed before acquiring the
idpf_vc_xn_lock when idpf has to forward the virtchnl reply.

Fixes: 34c21fa894a1a (“idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager”)
Signed-off-by: Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@google.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
index 70986e12da28..30eec674d594 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
@@ -612,14 +612,15 @@ idpf_vc_xn_forward_reply(struct idpf_adapter *adapter,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 	xn = &adapter->vcxn_mngr->ring[xn_idx];
+	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
 	salt = FIELD_GET(IDPF_VC_XN_SALT_M, msg_info);
 	if (xn->salt != salt) {
 		dev_err_ratelimited(&adapter->pdev->dev, "Transaction salt does not match (%02x != %02x)\n",
 				    xn->salt, salt);
+		idpf_vc_xn_unlock(xn);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
 	switch (xn->state) {
 	case IDPF_VC_XN_WAITING:
 		/* success */
-- 
2.46.0.295.g3b9ea8a38a-goog

Re: [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

Posted by Linga, Pavan Kumar 1 year, 3 months ago


On 8/26/2024 11:10 AM, Manoj Vishwanathan wrote:
> The transaction salt was being accessed before acquiring the
> idpf_vc_xn_lock when idpf has to forward the virtchnl reply.
> 
> Fixes: 34c21fa894a1a (“idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager”)
> Signed-off-by: Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.linga@intel.com>

> ---
>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> index 70986e12da28..30eec674d594 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> @@ -612,14 +612,15 @@ idpf_vc_xn_forward_reply(struct idpf_adapter *adapter,
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>   	xn = &adapter->vcxn_mngr->ring[xn_idx];
> +	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
>   	salt = FIELD_GET(IDPF_VC_XN_SALT_M, msg_info);
>   	if (xn->salt != salt) {
>   		dev_err_ratelimited(&adapter->pdev->dev, "Transaction salt does not match (%02x != %02x)\n",
>   				    xn->salt, salt);
> +		idpf_vc_xn_unlock(xn);
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>   
> -	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
>   	switch (xn->state) {
>   	case IDPF_VC_XN_WAITING:
>   		/* success */

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

Posted by Jacob Keller 1 year, 3 months ago


On 8/26/2024 11:10 AM, Manoj Vishwanathan wrote:
> The transaction salt was being accessed before acquiring the
> idpf_vc_xn_lock when idpf has to forward the virtchnl reply.
> 
> Fixes: 34c21fa894a1a (“idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager”)
> Signed-off-by: Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@google.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>

>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> index 70986e12da28..30eec674d594 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> @@ -612,14 +612,15 @@ idpf_vc_xn_forward_reply(struct idpf_adapter *adapter,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  	xn = &adapter->vcxn_mngr->ring[xn_idx];
> +	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);

Could look at implementing cleanup.h based locking here so that we could
use guard or scope_guard and not have to litter the exit paths with unlocks.

I don't think that needs to be done in this patch, though.

>  	salt = FIELD_GET(IDPF_VC_XN_SALT_M, msg_info);
>  	if (xn->salt != salt) {
>  		dev_err_ratelimited(&adapter->pdev->dev, "Transaction salt does not match (%02x != %02x)\n",
>  				    xn->salt, salt);
> +		idpf_vc_xn_unlock(xn);
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> -	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
>  	switch (xn->state) {
>  	case IDPF_VC_XN_WAITING:
>  		/* success */

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

Posted by Przemek Kitszel 1 year, 3 months ago

On 8/28/24 23:29, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/26/2024 11:10 AM, Manoj Vishwanathan wrote:
>> The transaction salt was being accessed before acquiring the
>> idpf_vc_xn_lock when idpf has to forward the virtchnl reply.
>>
>> Fixes: 34c21fa894a1a (“idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager”)
>> Signed-off-by: Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@google.com>
>> ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
> 
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
>> index 70986e12da28..30eec674d594 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
>> @@ -612,14 +612,15 @@ idpf_vc_xn_forward_reply(struct idpf_adapter *adapter,
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>>   	xn = &adapter->vcxn_mngr->ring[xn_idx];
>> +	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
> 
> Could look at implementing cleanup.h based locking here so that we could
> use guard or scope_guard and not have to litter the exit paths with unlocks.

only scope_guard() for networking code

> 
> I don't think that needs to be done in this patch, though.

+1

> 
>>   	salt = FIELD_GET(IDPF_VC_XN_SALT_M, msg_info);
>>   	if (xn->salt != salt) {
>>   		dev_err_ratelimited(&adapter->pdev->dev, "Transaction salt does not match (%02x != %02x)\n",
>>   				    xn->salt, salt);
>> +		idpf_vc_xn_unlock(xn);
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
>>   	switch (xn->state) {
>>   	case IDPF_VC_XN_WAITING:
>>   		/* success */

RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

Posted by Keller, Jacob E 1 year, 3 months ago


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:05 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; google-lan-
> reviews@googlegroups.com; Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@google.com>;
> David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet@google.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock
> before accessing the xn->salt
> 
> On 8/28/24 23:29, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/26/2024 11:10 AM, Manoj Vishwanathan wrote:
> >> The transaction salt was being accessed before acquiring the
> >> idpf_vc_xn_lock when idpf has to forward the virtchnl reply.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 34c21fa894a1a (“idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager”)
> >> Signed-off-by: Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@google.com>
> >> ---
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
> >
> >>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 3 ++-
> >>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> >> index 70986e12da28..30eec674d594 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> >> @@ -612,14 +612,15 @@ idpf_vc_xn_forward_reply(struct idpf_adapter
> *adapter,
> >>   		return -EINVAL;
> >>   	}
> >>   	xn = &adapter->vcxn_mngr->ring[xn_idx];
> >> +	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
> >
> > Could look at implementing cleanup.h based locking here so that we could
> > use guard or scope_guard and not have to litter the exit paths with unlocks.
> 
> only scope_guard() for networking code
> 

Yea, leaving it as-is is fine. I personally find cleanup-based locking better, but it appears the maintainers and majority feel otherwise.