[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220416133043.08b4ee74@ceranb>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:30:43 +0200
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
To: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
Fei Liu <feliu@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<mschmidt@...hat.com>, Brett Creeley <brett@...sando.io>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by
cfg_lock in ice_vc_process_vf_msg()
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:55:06 -0700
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com> wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_virtchnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_virtchnl.c
> >>> index 5612c032f15a..553287a75b50 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_virtchnl.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_virtchnl.c
> >>> @@ -3625,44 +3625,39 @@ void ice_vc_process_vf_msg(struct ice_pf *pf, struct ice_rq_event_info *event)
> >>> return;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + mutex_lock(&vf->cfg_lock);
> >>> +
> >>> /* Check if VF is disabled. */
> >>> if (test_bit(ICE_VF_STATE_DIS, vf->vf_states)) {
> >>> err = -EPERM;
> >>> - goto error_handler;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> - ops = vf->virtchnl_ops;
> >>> -
> >>> - /* Perform basic checks on the msg */
> >>> - err = virtchnl_vc_validate_vf_msg(&vf->vf_ver, v_opcode, msg, msglen);
> >>> - if (err) {
> >>> - if (err == VIRTCHNL_STATUS_ERR_PARAM)
> >>> - err = -EPERM;
> >>> - else
> >>> - err = -EINVAL;
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + /* Perform basic checks on the msg */
> >>> + err = virtchnl_vc_validate_vf_msg(&vf->vf_ver, v_opcode, msg,
> >>> + msglen);
> >>> + if (err) {
> >>> + if (err == VIRTCHNL_STATUS_ERR_PARAM)
> >>> + err = -EPERM;
> >>> + else
> >>> + err = -EINVAL;
> >>> + }
> >> The chunk above feels a bit like unnecessary churn, no?
> >> Couldn't this patch be simply focused only on extending critical section?
>
> Agree, this doesn't seem related to the fix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony
Yes, it is not directly related but it's just a conversion of following snippet
to avoid ugly and unnecessary 'goto':
if (A) {
err = ...
goto error_handler;
}
if (B) {
err = ...
...
}
if (err) {
...
}
to
if (A) {
err = ...
} else {
if (B) {
...
}
}
if (err) {
...
}
If you want to leave the code as is and remove this from the patch
let me know and I will send v2.
Thanks,
Ivan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists