linux-kernel - Re: [Patch net-next v2] net: mana: Handle hardware recovery events when probing the device

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7d835eb1-f111-46e5-8834-a1fafb53bd8f@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:11:21 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: longli@...ux.microsoft.com, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
 Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
 Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Shradha Gupta <shradhagupta@...ux.microsoft.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Konstantin Taranov
 <kotaranov@...rosoft.com>,
 Souradeep Chakrabarti <schakrabarti@...ux.microsoft.com>,
 Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v2] net: mana: Handle hardware recovery events
 when probing the device

On 11/18/25 2:52 AM, longli@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
> 
> When MANA is being probed, it's possible that hardware is in recovery
> mode and the device may get GDMA_EQE_HWC_RESET_REQUEST over HWC in the
> middle of the probe. Detect such condition and go through the recovery
> service procedure.
> 
> Fixes: fbe346ce9d62 ("net: mana: Handle Reset Request from MANA NIC")
> Signed-off-by: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>

Does not apply cleanly anymore due to commit
934fa943b53795339486cc0026b3ab7ad39dc600, please rebase and repost.

> +static void mana_recovery_delayed_func(struct work_struct *w)
> +{
> +	struct mana_dev_recovery_work *work;
> +	struct mana_dev_recovery *dev, *tmp;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	work = container_of(w, struct mana_dev_recovery_work, work.work);
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&work->lock, flags);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &work->dev_list, list) {
> +		list_del(&dev->list);

Minor nit: here and in similar code below I find sligly more readable
something alike:

	while (!list_empty(&work->dev_list)) {
		dev = list_first_entry(&work->dev_list);
		list_del(dev);
		//...

as it's more clear that releasing the lock will not causes races, but no
strong opinion against the current style.

/P

/P