ignore my rebased patch. I applied his series in wrong order
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 8:57 AM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> updated patch attached (to fix minor merge conflict)
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 5:25 AM Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 4:46 PM <nspmangalore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > cifs_chan_is_iface_active checks the channels of a session to see
> > > if the associated iface is active. This should always happen
> > > with chan_lock held. However, these two callers of this function
> > > were missing this locking.
> > >
> > > This change makes sure the function calls are protected with
> > > proper locking.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/smb/client/connect.c | 7 +++++--
> > > fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/smb/client/connect.c b/fs/smb/client/connect.c
> > > index 8b7cffba1ad5..3052a208c6ca 100644
> > > --- a/fs/smb/client/connect.c
> > > +++ b/fs/smb/client/connect.c
> > > @@ -232,10 +232,13 @@ cifs_mark_tcp_ses_conns_for_reconnect(struct TCP_Server_Info *server,
> > > spin_lock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry_safe(ses, nses, &pserver->smb_ses_list, smb_ses_list) {
> > > /* check if iface is still active */
> > > - if (!cifs_chan_is_iface_active(ses, server))
> > > + spin_lock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > + if (!cifs_chan_is_iface_active(ses, server)) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > cifs_chan_update_iface(ses, server);
> > > + spin_lock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - spin_lock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > if (!mark_smb_session && cifs_chan_needs_reconnect(ses, server)) {
> > > spin_unlock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > continue;
> > > diff --git a/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c b/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c
> > > index 441d144bd712..104c58df0368 100644
> > > --- a/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c
> > > +++ b/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c
> > > @@ -784,9 +784,14 @@ SMB3_request_interfaces(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon, bool in_
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > /* check if iface is still active */
> > > + spin_lock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > pserver = ses->chans[0].server;
> > > - if (pserver && !cifs_chan_is_iface_active(ses, pserver))
> > > + if (pserver && !cifs_chan_is_iface_active(ses, pserver)) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > cifs_chan_update_iface(ses, pserver);
> > > + spin_lock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > > + }
> > > + spin_unlock(&ses->chan_lock);
> > >
> > > out:
> > > kfree(out_buf);
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
> >
> > This one fixes two changes. Not sure if it's valid to have two Fixes tag.
>
> Yes - that is ok (two Fixes tags)
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
--
Thanks,
Steve
