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

[Keller, Jacob E]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel at intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:05 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller at intel.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <anthony.l.nguyen at intel.com>
> Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; google-lan-
> reviews at googlegroups.com; Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy at google.com>;
> David S. Miller <davem at davemloft.net>; Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet at google.com>; intel-wired-lan at 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:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 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.