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

[Przemek Kitszel]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >   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 */