netdev - Re: [net-next 05/13] igc: Check __IGC_PTP_TX_IN_PROGRESS instead of ptp_tx

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: <20200629171927.7b2629c2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:19:27 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...el.com>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 05/13] igc: Check __IGC_PTP_TX_IN_PROGRESS instead of
 ptp_tx_skb

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:07:00 -0700 Andre Guedes wrote:
> > What if timeout happens, igc_ptp_tx_hang() starts cleaning up and then
> > irq gets delivered half way through? Perhaps we should just add a spin
> > lock around the ptp_tx_s* fields?  
> 
> Yep, I think this other scenario is possible indeed, and we should probably
> protect ptp_tx_s* with a lock. Thanks for pointing that out. In fact, it seems
> this issue can happen even with current net-next code.
> 
> Since that issue is not introduced by this patch, would it be OK we move forward
> with it, and fix the issue in a separate patch?

Fine by me.