Re: [PATCH rdma-rc 4/9] IB/ipoib: Fix double free of skb in case of multicast traffic in CM mode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:26:30AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:

> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h
> index 2aa3457a30ce..c614cb87d09b 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib.h
> @@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ struct ipoib_dev_priv {
>  	struct ipoib_tx_buf *tx_ring;
>  	unsigned int	     tx_head;
>  	unsigned int	     tx_tail;
> +	atomic_t             tx_outstanding;
>  	struct ib_sge	     tx_sge[MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1];
>  	struct ib_ud_wr      tx_wr;
>  	struct ib_wc	     send_wc[MAX_SEND_CQE];
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> index c59e00a0881f..db6aace83fe5 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ void ipoib_cm_send(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb, struct ipoib_cm_
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if ((priv->tx_head - priv->tx_tail) == ipoib_sendq_size - 1) {
> +	if (atomic_read(&priv->tx_outstanding) == ipoib_sendq_size - 1) {
>  		ipoib_dbg(priv, "TX ring 0x%x full, stopping kernel net queue\n",
>  			  tx->qp->qp_num);
>  		netif_stop_queue(dev);
> @@ -786,7 +786,7 @@ void ipoib_cm_send(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb, struct ipoib_cm_
>  	} else {
>  		netif_trans_update(dev);
>  		++tx->tx_head;
> -		++priv->tx_head;
> +		atomic_inc(&priv->tx_outstanding);
>  	}

This use of an atomic is very weird, probably wrong.

Why is it an atomic?  priv->tx_head wasn't an atomic, and every place
touching tx_outstanding was also touching tx_head.

I assume there is some hidden locking here? Or much more stuff is
busted up.

In that case, drop the atomic.

However, if the atomic is needed (where/why?) then something has to
be dealing with the races, and if the write side is fully locked then
an atomic is the wrong choice, use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE instead

Jason



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux