Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Date: 2024-08-28 21:29:52
Also in:
intel-wired-lan, lkml
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 <redacted> ---
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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 */