Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:05:56 +0200
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>
Cc:     Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.pkin@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@marvell.com>,
        "GR-everest-linux-l2@marvell.com" <GR-everest-linux-l2@marvell.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        nd <nd@arm.com>, Shai Malin <malin1024@gmail.com>,
        Shai Malin <smalin@marvell.com>,
        Prabhakar Kushwaha <pkushwaha@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qed: fix possible unpaired spin_{un}lock_bh in
 _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union()
Message-ID: <20210720110556.24cf7f8e@cakuba>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR08MB4376CD003BF58F85E0121F39F7E29@AM6PR08MB4376.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20210715080822.14575-1-justin.he@arm.com>
        <CAJ2QiJLWgxw0X8rkMhKgAGgiFS5xhrhMF5Dct_J791Kt-ys7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <AM6PR08MB4376894A46B47B024F50FBB3F7E19@AM6PR08MB4376.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
        <CAJ2QiJJ8=jkbRVscnXM2m_n2RX2pNdJG4iA3tYiNGDYefb-hjA@mail.gmail.com>
        <AM6PR08MB4376CD003BF58F85E0121F39F7E29@AM6PR08MB4376.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:02:26 +0000, Justin He wrote:
> > > For instance:
> > > _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union()
> > >   In while loop
> > >     spin_lock_bh()
> > >     qed_mcp_has_pending_cmd() (assume false), will break the loop  
> > 
> > I agree till here.
> >   
> > >   if (cnt >= max_retries) {
> > > ...
> > >     return -EAGAIN; <-- here returns -EAGAIN without invoking bh unlock
> > >   }
> > >  
> > 
> > Because of break, cnt has not been increased.
> >    - cnt is still less than max_retries.
> >   - if (cnt >= max_retries) will not be *true*, leading to spin_unlock_bh().
> > Hence pairing completed.  
> 
> Sorry, indeed. Let me check other possibilities.
> @David S. Miller Sorry for the inconvenience, could you please revert it
> in netdev tree?

Please submit a revert patch with the conclusions from the discussion
included in the commit message.