On 8/20/22 3:35 AM, Li Jinlin wrote:
>
> On 2022/8/8 0:58, Mike Christie wrote:
>
>> @@ -763,8 +768,15 @@ static int iscsi_sw_tcp_conn_set_param(struct iscsi_cls_conn *cls_conn,
>> break;
>> case ISCSI_PARAM_DATADGST_EN:
>> iscsi_set_param(cls_conn, param, buf, buflen);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&tcp_sw_conn->sock_lock);
>> + if (!tcp_sw_conn->sock) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&tcp_sw_conn->sock_lock);
>> + return -ENOTCONN;
>> + }
>> tcp_sw_conn->sendpage = conn->datadgst_en ?
>> sock_no_sendpage : tcp_sw_conn->sock->ops->sendpage;
>> + mutex_unlock(&tcp_sw_conn->sock_lock);
>> break;
>> case ISCSI_PARAM_MAX_R2T:
>> return iscsi_tcp_set_max_r2t(conn, buf);
>> @@ -789,14 +801,12 @@ static int iscsi_sw_tcp_conn_get_param(struct iscsi_cls_conn *cls_conn,
>> case ISCSI_PARAM_CONN_PORT:
>> case ISCSI_PARAM_CONN_ADDRESS:
>> case ISCSI_PARAM_LOCAL_PORT:
>> - spin_lock_bh(&conn->session->frwd_lock);
>> - if (!tcp_sw_conn || !tcp_sw_conn->sock) {
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&conn->session->frwd_lock);
>> + mutex_lock(&tcp_sw_conn->sock_lock);
>
> In iscsi_tcp_conn_setup(), cls_conn was setup before initializing
> tcp_sw_conn. So tcp_sw_conn may be NULL in here, need to add a check.
>
You're right. Instead of a check I'm going to split the rest of the
iscsi*conn_setup functions so we have a alloc and an add. We can then
do the sysfs exposure correctly.
Will resend.
