[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPRKS8_bGqfE3x8abj0p1CTVcLk8EtVn8gjbWd15CaC42_Oew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 09:14:32 -0700
From: Justin Tee <justintee8345@...il.com>
To: Tuo Li <islituo@...il.com>
Cc: james.smart@...adcom.com, dick.kennedy@...adcom.com,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
baijiaju1990@...look.com, BassCheck <bass@...a.edu.cn>,
Justin Tee <justin.tee@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: lpfc: Fix a possible data race in lpfc_unregister_fcf_rescan()
Hi Tuo,
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Justin Tee <justin.tee@...adcom.com>
Thanks,
Justin
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 8:03 PM Tuo Li <islituo@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The variable phba->fcf.fcf_flag is often protected by the lock
> phba->hbalock() when is accessed. Here is an example in
> lpfc_unregister_fcf_rescan():
>
> spin_lock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
> phba->fcf.fcf_flag |= FCF_INIT_DISC;
> spin_unlock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
>
> However, in the same function, phba->fcf.fcf_flag is assigned with 0
> without holding the lock, and thus can cause a data race:
>
> phba->fcf.fcf_flag = 0;
>
> To fix this possible data race, a lock and unlock pair is added when
> accessing the variable phba->fcf.fcf_flag.
>
> Reported-by: BassCheck <bass@...a.edu.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Tuo Li <islituo@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> index 5ba3a9ad9501..9d2feb69cae7 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> @@ -6961,7 +6961,9 @@ lpfc_unregister_fcf_rescan(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
> if (rc)
> return;
> /* Reset HBA FCF states after successful unregister FCF */
> + spin_lock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
> phba->fcf.fcf_flag = 0;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
> phba->fcf.current_rec.flag = 0;
>
> /*
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists