OpenE2K/linux
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

sfc: take correct lock in ef100_reset()

Browse Source 
When downing and upping the ef100 filter table, we need to take a write
 lock on efx->filter_sem, not just a read lock, because we may kfree()
 the table pointers.
Without this, resets cause a WARN_ON from efx_rwsem_assert_write_locked().

Fixes: a9dc3d5612 ("sfc_ef100: RX filter table management and related gubbins")
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
Reviewed-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
Edward Cree 2020-08-18 13:43:57 +01:00 committed by David S. Miller
parent db06ea341f
commit 9cbbc45109
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef100_nic.c
View File

@ -431,18 +431,18 @@ static int ef100_reset(struct efx_nic *efx, enum reset_type reset_type)
/* A RESET_TYPE_ALL will cause filters to be removed, so we remove filters
* and reprobe after reset to avoid removing filters twice
*/
down_read(&efx->filter_sem);
down_write(&efx->filter_sem);
ef100_filter_table_down(efx);
up_read(&efx->filter_sem);
up_write(&efx->filter_sem);
rc = efx_mcdi_reset(efx, reset_type);
if (rc)
return rc;
netif_device_attach(efx->net_dev);
down_read(&efx->filter_sem);
down_write(&efx->filter_sem);
rc = ef100_filter_table_up(efx);
up_read(&efx->filter_sem);
up_write(&efx->filter_sem);
if (rc)
return rc;