netdev - Re: [net-next] enetc: fix locking for one-step timestamping packet transfer

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:10:55 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [net-next] enetc: fix locking for one-step timestamping packet
 transfer

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:48:17 +0800 Yangbo Lu wrote:
> +	/* Queue one-step Sync packet if already locked */
> +	if (skb->cb[0] & ENETC_F_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC_TSTAMP) {
> +		if (test_and_set_bit_lock(ENETC_TX_ONESTEP_TSTAMP_IN_PROGRESS,
> +					  &priv->flags)) {
> +			skb_queue_tail(&priv->tx_skbs, skb);
> +			return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> +		}
> +	}

Isn't this missing queue_work() as well?

Also as I mentioned I don't understand why you created a separate
workqueue instead of using the system workqueue via schedule_work().