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

[Jacob Keller]

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 at google.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller at intel.com>

>  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.

I don't think that needs to be done in this patch, though.

>  	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 */