> -----Original Message----- > From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kits...@intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:05 PM > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L > <anthony.l.ngu...@intel.com> > Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; google-lan- > revi...@googlegroups.com; Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvi...@google.com>; > David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>; Eric Dumazet > <eduma...@google.com>; intel-wired-...@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 <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 >
Yea, leaving it as-is is fine. I personally find cleanup-based locking better, but it appears the maintainers and majority feel otherwise.
