netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v7 2/2] qede: Add driver support for PTP

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

Message-ID: <BL2PR07MB2306B4233E972F10012DF7398D5A0@BL2PR07MB2306.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:45:43 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Kalluru, Sudarsana" <Sudarsana.Kalluru@...ium.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v7 2/2] qede: Add driver support for PTP


> > > +void qede_ptp_tx_ts(struct qede_dev *edev, struct sk_buff *skb) {
> > > +	struct qede_ptp *ptp;
> > > +
> > > +	ptp = edev->ptp;
> > > +	if (!ptp)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	if (unlikely(!(edev->flags & QEDE_TX_TIMESTAMPING_EN))) {
> > > +		DP_NOTICE(edev,
> > > +			  "Tx timestamping was not enabled, this packet will
> > not be timestamped\n");
> > > +	} else if (unlikely(ptp->tx_skb)) {
> > > +		DP_NOTICE(edev,
> > > +			  "The device supports only a single outstanding
> > packet to timestamp, this packet will not be timestamped\n");
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS;
> > > +		/* schedule check for Tx timestamp */
> > > +		ptp->tx_skb = skb_get(skb);
> > > +		schedule_work(&ptp->work);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> >
> >
> > This is a multi queue device.
> >
> > Therefore multiple cpus could call this function at the same time.
> >
> > ptp->tx_skb needs some kind of SMP protection.
> 
> IIs it a real issue or odd corner-case in actual scenario?

we have a print going to out at default when encountering
this; So assuming it's a real life scenario, we should probably
remove it as well.
If it's not, I can simply convert it to WARN_ONCE().