lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Fix incorrect locking in ice_vc_process_vf_msg()
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Creeley <brett@pensando.io>
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:33 AM
> To: Fijalkowski, Maciej <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
> Cc: ivecera <ivecera@redhat.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org; moderated
> list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>; mschmidt
> <mschmidt@redhat.com>; open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; poros
> <poros@redhat.com>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni
> <pabeni@redhat.com>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Keller, Jacob E
> <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Fix incorrect locking in
> ice_vc_process_vf_msg()
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 6:17 AM Maciej Fijalkowski
> <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:14:32PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:50:04PM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> > > > Usage of mutex_trylock() in ice_vc_process_vf_msg() is incorrect
> > > > because message sent from VF is ignored and never processed.
> > > >
> > > > Use mutex_lock() instead to fix the issue. It is safe because this
> > >
> > > We need to know what is *the* issue in the first place.
> > > Could you please provide more context what is being fixed to the readers
> > > that don't have an access to bugzilla?
> > >
> > > Specifically, what is the case that ignoring a particular message when
> > > mutex is already held is a broken behavior?
> >
> > Uh oh, let's
> > CC: Brett Creeley <brett@pensando.io>
>

Thanks for responding, Brett! :)

> My concern here is that we don't want to handle messages
> from the context of the "previous" VF configuration if that
> makes sense.
>

Makes sense. Perhaps we need to do some sort of "clear the existing message queue" when we initiate a reset?

> It might be best to grab the cfg_lock before doing any
> message/VF validating in ice_vc_process_vf_msg() to
> make sure all of the checks are done under the cfg_lock.
>

Yes that seems like it should be done.

> CC'ing Jake so he can provide some input as
> well.

Thanks,
Jake


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-31 22:00    [W:0.053 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site