On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 11:31 -0700, Justin Tee wrote:
> Due to a target port D_ID swap, it is possible for the
> lpfc_register_remote_port routine to touch post mortem fc_rport
> memory when
> trying to access fc_rport->dd_data.
>
> The D_ID swap causes a simultaneous call to
> lpfc_unregister_remote_port,
> where fc_remote_port_delete reclaims fc_rport memory.
>
> Remove the fc_rport->dd_data->pnode NULL assignment because the
> following
> line reassigns ndlp->rport with an fc_rport object from
> fc_remote_port_add
> anyways. The pnode nullification is superfluous.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Tee <justin.tee@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
This patch fixed a customer issue for us.
Acked-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c | 8 --------
> 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> index 67bfdddb897c..63e42e3f2165 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
> @@ -4498,14 +4498,6 @@ lpfc_register_remote_port(struct lpfc_vport
> *vport, struct lpfc_nodelist *ndlp)
> if (vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING)
> return;
>
> - /*
> - * Disassociate any older association between this ndlp and
> rport
> - */
> - if (ndlp->rport) {
> - rdata = ndlp->rport->dd_data;
> - rdata->pnode = NULL;
> - }
> -
> ndlp->rport = rport = fc_remote_port_add(shost, 0,
> &rport_ids);
> if (!rport) {
> dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &phba->pcidev->dev,
