[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6umJrdf0IsgAUWi@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:33:58 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Wentao Liang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tg3: Check return value of tg3_nvram_lock before
resetting lock
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:26:58PM +0800, Wentao Liang wrote:
> The current code does not check the return value of tg3_nvram_lock before
> resetting the lock count (tp->nvram_lock_cnt = 0). This is dangerous
> because if tg3_nvram_lock fails, the lock state may be inconsistent,
> leading to potential race conditions or undefined behavior.
>
> This patch adds a check for the return value of tg3_nvram_lock. If the
> function fails, the error is propagated to the caller, ensuring that
> the lock state remains consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
> index 9cc8db10a8d6..851d19b3f43c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
> @@ -9160,7 +9160,9 @@ static int tg3_chip_reset(struct tg3 *tp)
> if (!pci_device_is_present(tp->pdev))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> - tg3_nvram_lock(tp);
> + err = tg3_nvram_lock(tp);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
>
> tg3_ape_lock(tp, TG3_APE_LOCK_GRC);
A couple notes from me:
1. Subject should say "PATCH net-next"
2. Use --base=auto to generate a base-commit.
3. code looks fine to me, tg3_nvram_lock is checked in all other
invocations.
4. that said, seems like tg3_ape_lock could have also gotten a
check added at the same time?
I can see the argument that tg3_ape_lock cleanup should come
separately, since there are a few unchecked invocations of it other
than the one right next to the one you changed.
So, if you resend with 1 & 2 fixed, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists