[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170721185002.GV18556@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:50:02 -0400
From: lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
To: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] e1000e: Separate signaling for link check/link up
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:36:26AM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Lennart reported the following race condition:
>
> \ e1000_watchdog_task
> \ e1000e_has_link
> \ hw->mac.ops.check_for_link() === e1000e_check_for_copper_link
> /* link is up */
> mac->get_link_status = false;
>
> /* interrupt */
> \ e1000_msix_other
> hw->mac.get_link_status = true;
>
> link_active = !hw->mac.get_link_status
> /* link_active is false, wrongly */
>
> This problem arises because the single flag get_link_status is used to
> signal two different states: link status needs checking and link status is
> down.
>
> Avoid the problem by using the return value of .check_for_link to signal
> the link status to e1000e_has_link().
>
> Reported-by: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
This too seems potentially -stable worthy, although with patch 5, the
problem becomes much much less likely to occur.
--
Len Sorensen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists