On 8/28/24 23:29, Jacob Keller wrote:

On 8/26/2024 11:10 AM, Manoj Vishwanathan wrote:

quoted

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

  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

quoted

  	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 */