netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/3] ice: Fix ice VF reset during iavf initialization

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: <a67aa5c2997a816c2573a7f9da3215dbac20b32a.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:24:52 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wesierski, DawidX" <dawidx.wesierski@...el.com>,
        "Maziarz, Kamil" <kamil.maziarz@...el.com>,
        "Romanowski, Rafal" <rafal.romanowski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] ice: Fix ice VF reset during iavf initialization

On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 16:22 +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> 
> > But what I see is that ICE_VF_STATE_ACTIVE bit check is racy and
> > you
> > don't really fix the root cause of calling to reset without proper
> > locking.
> > 
> 
> I think there's some confusing re-use of words going on in the commit
> message. It describes what the VF does while recovering and re-
> initializing from a reset. I think the goal is to prevent starting
> another reset until the first one has recovered. 

Uhmm... it looks like the current patch does not prevent two concurrent
resets, I think the goal of this patch is let other vf related ndo
restart gracefully when a VF reset is running.

> I am not sure we can use a standard lock here because we likely do
> want to be able to recover if the VF driver doesn't respond in a
> sufficient time.
> 
> I don't know exactly what problem this commit claims to fix.

I think this patch could benefit from at least a more
descriptive/clearer commit message.

Thanks,

Paolo