Re: [PATCH net-next v25 1/1] mctp pcc: Implement MCTP over PCC Transport
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@codeconstruct.com.au>
Date: 2025-08-22 08:21:55
Also in:
lkml
Hi Adam, A few comments inline, mainly on the locking & list traversal.
+struct mctp_pcc_mailbox {
+ u32 index;
+ struct pcc_mbox_chan *chan;
+ struct mbox_client client;
+ struct sk_buff_head packets;
+};
+
+/* The netdev structure. One of these per PCC adapter. */
+struct mctp_pcc_ndev {
+ /* spinlock to serialize access to queue that holds a copy of the
+ * sk_buffs that are also in the ring buffers of the mailbox.
+ */
+ spinlock_t lock;
+ struct net_device *ndev;
+ struct acpi_device *acpi_device;
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox inbox;
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox outbox;
+};
+
+static void *mctp_pcc_rx_alloc(struct mbox_client *c, int size)
+{
+ struct mctp_pcc_ndev *mctp_pcc_ndev;
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox *box;
+ struct sk_buff *skb;
+
+ mctp_pcc_ndev = container_of(c, struct mctp_pcc_ndev, inbox.client);
+ box = &mctp_pcc_ndev->inbox;
+
+ if (size > mctp_pcc_ndev->ndev->mtu)
+ return NULL;
+ skb = netdev_alloc_skb(mctp_pcc_ndev->ndev, size);
+ if (!skb)
+ return NULL;
+ skb_put(skb, size);
+ skb->protocol = htons(ETH_P_MCTP);
+
+ spin_lock(&mctp_pcc_ndev->lock);
+ skb_queue_head(&box->packets, skb);
+ spin_unlock(&mctp_pcc_ndev->lock);Given you're using your own locking here (which seems sensible, since you're iterating elsewhere), you're not relying on the list's lock. In which case you can use __skb_queue_head() (and __skb_unlink below) as lockless variants.
+
+ return skb->data;
+}
+
+static void mctp_pcc_client_rx_callback(struct mbox_client *c, void *buffer)
+{
+ struct mctp_pcc_ndev *mctp_pcc_ndev;
+ struct pcc_header pcc_header;
+ struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
+ struct mctp_skb_cb *cb;
+
+ mctp_pcc_ndev = container_of(c, struct mctp_pcc_ndev, inbox.client);
+ if (!buffer) {
+ dev_dstats_rx_dropped(mctp_pcc_ndev->ndev);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&mctp_pcc_ndev->lock);
+ skb_queue_walk(&mctp_pcc_ndev->inbox.packets, skb) {
+ if (skb->data != buffer)
+ continue;
+ skb_unlink(skb, &mctp_pcc_ndev->inbox.packets);
+ break;
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&mctp_pcc_ndev->lock);
+
+ if (skb) {The termination case of skb_queue_walk() will not leave skb as null. Instead, you will probably want to use a temporary variable for the iterator, and set skb when you find a match.
+ dev_dstats_rx_add(mctp_pcc_ndev->ndev, skb->len);
+ skb_reset_mac_header(skb);
+ skb_pull(skb, sizeof(pcc_header));
+ skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+ cb = __mctp_cb(skb);
+ cb->halen = 0;
+ netif_rx(skb);
+ }
+}
+
+static void mctp_pcc_tx_done(struct mbox_client *c, void *mssg, int r)
+{
+ struct mctp_pcc_ndev *mctp_pcc_ndev;
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox *box;
+ struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
+
+ mctp_pcc_ndev = container_of(c, struct mctp_pcc_ndev, outbox.client);
+ box = container_of(c, struct mctp_pcc_mailbox, client);
+ spin_lock(&mctp_pcc_ndev->lock);
+ skb_queue_walk(&box->packets, skb) {
+ if (skb->data == mssg) {
+ skb_unlink(skb, &box->packets);
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&mctp_pcc_ndev->lock);
+
+ if (skb)Same as above; this will not be null in the not-found case, but will point to the list head.
+ dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
... but even if so, you could pass skb as NULL here and avoid the if.
+}
+
+static netdev_tx_t mctp_pcc_tx(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *ndev)
+{
+ struct mctp_pcc_ndev *mpnd = netdev_priv(ndev);
+ struct pcc_header *pcc_header;
+ int len = skb->len;
+ int rc;
+
+ rc = skb_cow_head(skb, sizeof(*pcc_header));
+ if (rc) {
+ dev_dstats_tx_dropped(ndev);
+ kfree_skb(skb);
+ return NETDEV_TX_OK;
+ }
+
+ pcc_header = skb_push(skb, sizeof(*pcc_header));
+ pcc_header->signature = PCC_SIGNATURE | mpnd->outbox.index;
+ pcc_header->flags = PCC_CMD_COMPLETION_NOTIFY;
+ memcpy(&pcc_header->command, MCTP_SIGNATURE, MCTP_SIGNATURE_LENGTH);
+ pcc_header->length = len + MCTP_SIGNATURE_LENGTH;
+
+ spin_lock(&mpnd->lock);
+ skb_queue_head(&mpnd->outbox.packets, skb);
+ spin_unlock(&mpnd->lock);
+
+ rc = mbox_send_message(mpnd->outbox.chan->mchan, skb->data);
+
+ if (rc < 0) {
+ skb_unlink(skb, &mpnd->outbox.packets);This does not hold the lock you are using for the list traversal. If you want to rely on the list-internal locking, that's fine, but you need to be consistent in your approach.
+ return NETDEV_TX_BUSY;
+ }
+
+ dev_dstats_tx_add(ndev, len);
+ return NETDEV_TX_OK;
+}
+
+static void drain_packets(struct sk_buff_head *list)
+{
+ struct sk_buff *skb;
+
+ while (!skb_queue_empty(list)) {
+ skb = skb_dequeue(list);
+ dev_consume_skb_any(skb);
+ }
+}
+
+static int mctp_pcc_ndo_open(struct net_device *ndev)
+{
+ struct mctp_pcc_ndev *mctp_pcc_ndev =
+ netdev_priv(ndev);
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox *outbox =
+ &mctp_pcc_ndev->outbox;
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox *inbox =
+ &mctp_pcc_ndev->inbox;Minor: I don't think these need wrapping?
+ int mctp_pcc_mtu;
+
+ outbox->chan = pcc_mbox_request_channel(&outbox->client, outbox->index);
+ if (IS_ERR(outbox->chan))
+ return PTR_ERR(outbox->chan);
+
+ inbox->chan = pcc_mbox_request_channel(&inbox->client, inbox->index);
+ if (IS_ERR(inbox->chan)) {
+ pcc_mbox_free_channel(outbox->chan);
+ return PTR_ERR(inbox->chan);
+ }
+
+ mctp_pcc_ndev->inbox.chan->rx_alloc = mctp_pcc_rx_alloc;
+ mctp_pcc_ndev->outbox.chan->manage_writes = true;
+
+ /* There is no clean way to pass the MTU to the callback function
+ * used for registration, so set the values ahead of time.
+ */For my own clarity, what's "the callback function used for registration"?
+ mctp_pcc_mtu = mctp_pcc_ndev->outbox.chan->shmem_size -
+ sizeof(struct pcc_header);
+ ndev->mtu = MCTP_MIN_MTU;
+ ndev->max_mtu = mctp_pcc_mtu;
+ ndev->min_mtu = MCTP_MIN_MTU;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int mctp_pcc_ndo_stop(struct net_device *ndev)
+{
+ struct mctp_pcc_ndev *mctp_pcc_ndev =
+ netdev_priv(ndev);
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox *outbox =
+ &mctp_pcc_ndev->outbox;
+ struct mctp_pcc_mailbox *inbox =
+ &mctp_pcc_ndev->inbox;No wrapping needed here either. Cheers, Jeremy