[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<PH0PR18MB4474D5050F6CBA0B2D4A6041DEE22@PH0PR18MB4474.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:27:23 +0000
From: Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org"
<kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"shenwei.wang@....com" <shenwei.wang@....com>,
"xiaoning.wang@....com"
<xiaoning.wang@....com>,
"richardcochran@...il.com"
<richardcochran@...il.com>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH net] net: fec: avoid lock evasion when reading pps_enable
See inline,
> The assignment of pps_enable is protected by tmreg_lock, but the read
> operation of pps_enable is not. So the Coverity tool reports a lock evasion
> warning which may cause data race to occur when running in a multithread
> environment. Although this issue is almost impossible to occur, we'd better fix
> it, at least it seems more logically reasonable, and it also prevents Coverity
> from continuing to issue warnings.
>
> Fixes: 278d24047891 ("net: fec: ptp: Enable PPS output based on ptp clock")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> index 181d9bfbee22..8d37274a3fb0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> @@ -104,14 +104,16 @@ static int fec_ptp_enable_pps(struct
> fec_enet_private *fep, uint enable)
> struct timespec64 ts;
> u64 ns;
>
> - if (fep->pps_enable == enable)
> - return 0;
> -
> fep->pps_channel = DEFAULT_PPS_CHANNEL;
> fep->reload_period = PPS_OUPUT_RELOAD_PERIOD;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
>
> + if (fep->pps_enable == enable) {
Can we atomic_set/get instead of spin_lock here.
Thanks,
Hariprasad k
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> if (enable) {
> /* clear capture or output compare interrupt status if have.
> */
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists