lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240906124924.odfhsgiyg4jkrnqx@skbuf> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:49:24 +0300 From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> To: Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com> Cc: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, linux@...linux.org.uk, xfr@...look.com, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 3/7] net: stmmac: refactor FPE verification process On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 03:41:09PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 12:55:58PM +0800, Furong Xu wrote: > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c > > @@ -969,17 +969,30 @@ static void stmmac_mac_config(struct phylink_config *config, unsigned int mode, > > static void stmmac_fpe_link_state_handle(struct stmmac_priv *priv, bool is_up) > > { > > struct stmmac_fpe_cfg *fpe_cfg = &priv->fpe_cfg; > > - enum stmmac_fpe_state *lo_state = &fpe_cfg->lo_fpe_state; > > - enum stmmac_fpe_state *lp_state = &fpe_cfg->lp_fpe_state; > > - bool *hs_enable = &fpe_cfg->hs_enable; > > + unsigned long flags; > > > > - if (is_up && *hs_enable) { > > - stmmac_fpe_send_mpacket(priv, priv->ioaddr, fpe_cfg, > > - MPACKET_VERIFY); > > + timer_shutdown_sync(&fpe_cfg->verify_timer); > > } > > > > static void stmmac_mac_link_down(struct phylink_config *config, > > @@ -4091,10 +4068,10 @@ static int stmmac_release(struct net_device *dev) > > > > stmmac_release_ptp(priv); > > > > - pm_runtime_put(priv->device); > > - > > if (priv->dma_cap.fpesel) > > - stmmac_fpe_stop_wq(priv); > > + timer_shutdown_sync(&priv->fpe_cfg.verify_timer); > > + > > + pm_runtime_put(priv->device); > > > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -7372,53 +7334,88 @@ int stmmac_reinit_ringparam(struct net_device *dev, u32 rx_size, u32 tx_size) > > +static void stmmac_fpe_verify_timer_arm(struct stmmac_fpe_cfg *fpe_cfg) > > +{ > > + if (fpe_cfg->pmac_enabled && fpe_cfg->tx_enabled && > > + fpe_cfg->verify_enabled && > > + fpe_cfg->status != ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_FAILED && > > + fpe_cfg->status != ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED) { > > + timer_setup(&fpe_cfg->verify_timer, stmmac_fpe_verify_timer, 0); > > + mod_timer(&fpe_cfg->verify_timer, jiffies); > > + } > > +} > > @@ -7875,15 +7874,8 @@ int stmmac_suspend(struct device *dev) > > } > > rtnl_unlock(); > > > > - if (priv->dma_cap.fpesel) { > > - /* Disable FPE */ > > - stmmac_fpe_configure(priv, priv->ioaddr, > > - &priv->fpe_cfg, > > - priv->plat->tx_queues_to_use, > > - priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use, false); > > - > > - stmmac_fpe_stop_wq(priv); > > - } > > + if (priv->dma_cap.fpesel) > > + timer_shutdown_sync(&priv->fpe_cfg.verify_timer); > > > > priv->speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN; > > return 0; > > Calling timer_setup() after timer_shutdown_sync() is a bit unconventional, > but I don't see why it shouldn't work. > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> Actually, I'm really wondering. Is lockdep okay if you run timer_shutdown_sync() on a timer on which you've never called timer_setup()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists