netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] bnxt_en: Add ethtool -N support for ether filters.

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, 6 Feb 2024 14:45:41 +0100
From: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com,
	pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] bnxt_en: Add ethtool -N support for ether
 filters.

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:10:32AM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 11:04 PM Michal Swiatkowski
> <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > +     spin_lock_bh(&bp->ntp_fltr_lock);
> > > +     fltr = __bnxt_lookup_l2_filter(bp, key, idx);
> > > +     if (fltr) {
> > > +             fltr = ERR_PTR(-EEXIST);
> > > +             goto l2_filter_exit;
> > > +     }
> > > +     fltr = kzalloc(sizeof(*fltr), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > +     if (!fltr) {
> > > +             fltr = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > +             goto l2_filter_exit;
> > > +     }
> > > +     fltr->base.flags = flags;
> > > +     rc = bnxt_init_l2_filter(bp, fltr, key, idx);
> > > +     if (rc) {
> > > +             spin_unlock_bh(&bp->ntp_fltr_lock);
> > Why filter needs to be deleted without lock? If you can change the order
> > it looks more natural:
> >
> > +if (rc) {
> > +       fltr = ERR_PTR(rc);
> > +       goto l2_filter_del;
> > +}
> 
> Thanks for the review.  bnxt_del_l2_filter() will take the same lock
> inside the function if it goes ahead to delete the filter.  That's why
> the lock needs to be released first.

Got it, thanks.