-----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
[off-list ref]
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; google-lan-
reviews@googlegroups.com; Manoj Vishwanathan [off-list ref];
David S. Miller [off-list ref]; Eric Dumazet
[off-list ref]; 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:

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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,

quoted

quoted

  		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.