[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230912180635.GM401982@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:06:35 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, nbd@....name,
john@...ozen.org, sean.wang@...iatek.com, Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: mtk_wed: do not assume offload
callbacks are always set
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:26:07AM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Check if wlan.offload_enable and wlan.offload_disable callbacks are set
> in mtk_wed_flow_add/mtk_wed_flow_remove since mt7996 will not rely
> on them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Hi Lorenzo,
It's not not a big deal from my perspective, but
I do wonder if these mediatek patches could have been a series.
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_wed.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_wed.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_wed.c
> index 94376aa2b34c..d8cd59f44401 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_wed.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_wed.c
> @@ -1718,6 +1718,9 @@ int mtk_wed_flow_add(int index)
> if (!hw || !hw->wed_dev)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + if (!hw->wed_dev->wlan.offload_enable)
> + return 0;
A little further down in this function it is assumed that hw->wed_dev may
be NULL, a check made under a lock no less. But it is dereferenced
unconditionally here without a lock. This doesn't seem right one way or
another.
As flagged by Smatch.
> +
> if (hw->num_flows) {
> hw->num_flows++;
> return 0;
> @@ -1747,6 +1750,9 @@ void mtk_wed_flow_remove(int index)
> if (!hw)
> return;
>
> + if (!hw->wed_dev->wlan.offload_disable)
> + return;
> +
> if (--hw->num_flows)
> return;
>
> --
> 2.41.0
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists