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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:23:07 +0000
From:   "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Guedes, Andre" <andre.guedes@...el.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
        "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 05/13] igc: Check __IGC_PTP_TX_IN_PROGRESS instead of
 ptp_tx_skb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 17:19
> To: Guedes, Andre <andre.guedes@...el.com>
> Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; nhorman@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com;
> Brown, Aaron F <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.

Since your fine with Andre providing a follow-up patch to fix the issue of missing locks, I will go ahead and submit v2 of the series with the small fixup in patch 1 that Dave pointed out.