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 <manojvi...@google.com>
---
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@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
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 */
