>On 10/9/2019 9:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 9/19/2019 12:01 PM, Pallantla Poornima wrote:
>>> One issue caught by Coverity 340835
>>> *unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
>>> *double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex while
>>> it is unlocked.
>>>
>>> In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
>>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership() are
>>> invoked subsequently.
>>>
>>> Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
>>> 'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0, lock
>>> is not called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
>>> directly which is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
>>> During success scenario, lock is called in
>>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() followed by unlock in
>>> axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
>>> In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
>>> itself appropriately.
>>>
>>> The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case
>>> ensuring locks/unlocks properly exist.
>>>
>>> Coverity issue: 340835
>>> Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poorn...@intel.com>
>>
>> lgtm, 'axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()' expects
>> 'axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()'
>> gets the lock. Thanks for fixing the coverity issue.
>>
>> But still, Ravi can you please review/test the patch?
>>
>
>If there is no objection the patch will be merged soon.
>
Looks good to me. Ok to merge.
Regards,
Ravi
