netdev - RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock before accessing the xn->salt

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CO1PR11MB508997256C0176768082DFD2D6972@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 21:31:20 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: "Kitszel, Przemyslaw" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L"
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"google-lan-reviews@...glegroups.com" <google-lan-reviews@...glegroups.com>,
	Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the
 lock before accessing the xn->salt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:05 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; google-lan-
> reviews@...glegroups.com; Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@...gle.com>;
> David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet@...gle.com>; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [[PATCH v2 iwl-next] v2 2/4] idpf: Acquire the lock
> before accessing the xn->salt
> 
> On 8/28/24 23:29, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/26/2024 11:10 AM, Manoj Vishwanathan wrote:
> >> The transaction salt was being accessed before acquiring the
> >> idpf_vc_xn_lock when idpf has to forward the virtchnl reply.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 34c21fa894a1a (“idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager”)
> >> Signed-off-by: Manoj Vishwanathan <manojvishy@...gle.com>
> >> ---
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> >
> >>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c | 3 ++-
> >>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> >> index 70986e12da28..30eec674d594 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_virtchnl.c
> >> @@ -612,14 +612,15 @@ idpf_vc_xn_forward_reply(struct idpf_adapter
> *adapter,
> >>   		return -EINVAL;
> >>   	}
> >>   	xn = &adapter->vcxn_mngr->ring[xn_idx];
> >> +	idpf_vc_xn_lock(xn);
> >
> > Could look at implementing cleanup.h based locking here so that we could
> > use guard or scope_guard and not have to litter the exit paths with unlocks.
> 
> only scope_guard() for networking code
> 

Yea, leaving it as-is is fine. I personally find cleanup-based locking better, but it appears the maintainers and majority feel otherwise.