[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240905134008._e6BGgni@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 15:40:08 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: hsr: remove seqnr_lock
On 2024-09-05 15:26:27 [+0200], Eric Dumazet wrote:
> diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_slave.c b/net/hsr/hsr_slave.c
> index af6cf64a00e081c777db5f7786e8a27ea6f62e14..3971dbc0644ab8d32c04c262dbba7b1c950ebea9
> 100644
> --- a/net/hsr/hsr_slave.c
> +++ b/net/hsr/hsr_slave.c
> @@ -67,7 +67,9 @@ static rx_handler_result_t hsr_handle_frame(struct
> sk_buff **pskb)
> skb_set_network_header(skb, ETH_HLEN + HSR_HLEN);
> skb_reset_mac_len(skb);
>
> + spin_lock_bh(&hsr->seqnr_lock);
> hsr_forward_skb(skb, port);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&hsr->seqnr_lock);
>
> finish_consume:
> return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
>
>
> I am surprised we even have a discussion considering HSR has Orphan
> status in MAINTAINERS...
>
> I do not know how to test HSR, I am not sure the alternative patch is correct.
I did submit something to tests somewhere. I will try to test this and
let you know.
> Removing the seqnr_lock seems the safest to me.
Consider this as ack if you don't hear back from me.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists