Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-177256-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240513015127.961360-1-wei.fang@nxp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240513015127.961360-1-wei.fang@nxp.com>
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:29:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CANn89i+EQDCFrhC3mN8g2k=KFpaKtrDusgaUo9zBvv0JCw8eYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: fec: avoid lock evasion when reading pps_enable
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, 
	shenwei.wang@nxp.com, xiaoning.wang@nxp.com, richardcochran@gmail.com, 
	andrew@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	imx@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 4:02=E2=80=AFAM Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> The assignment of pps_enable is protected by tmreg_lock, but the read
> operation of pps_enable is not. So the Coverity tool reports a lock
> evasion warning which may cause data race to occur when running in a
> multithread environment. Although this issue is almost impossible to
> occur, we'd better fix it, at least it seems more logically reasonable,
> and it also prevents Coverity from continuing to issue warnings.
>
> Fixes: 278d24047891 ("net: fec: ptp: Enable PPS output based on ptp clock=
")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ether=
net/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> index 181d9bfbee22..8d37274a3fb0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_ptp.c
> @@ -104,14 +104,16 @@ static int fec_ptp_enable_pps(struct fec_enet_priva=
te *fep, uint enable)
>         struct timespec64 ts;
>         u64 ns;
>
> -       if (fep->pps_enable =3D=3D enable)
> -               return 0;
> -
>         fep->pps_channel =3D DEFAULT_PPS_CHANNEL;
>         fep->reload_period =3D PPS_OUPUT_RELOAD_PERIOD;

Why are these writes left without the spinlock protection ?


>
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
>
> +       if (fep->pps_enable =3D=3D enable) {
> +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fep->tmreg_lock, flags);
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
>         if (enable) {
>                 /* clear capture or output compare interrupt status if ha=
ve.
>                  */
> --
> 2.34.1
>