* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
@ 2019-09-19 11:01 Pallantla Poornima
2019-09-25 6:03 ` Poornima, PallantlaX
2019-10-09 8:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pallantla Poornima @ 2019-09-19 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev
Cc: reshma.pattan, jananeex.m.parthasarathy, ravi1.kumar,
Pallantla Poornima, stable
One issue caught by Coverity 340835
*unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
*double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
while it is unlocked.
In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
are invoked subsequently.
Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0,
lock is not called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
directly which is incorrect.
Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
During success scenario, lock is called in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
followed by unlock in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
itself appropriately.
The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case
ensuring locks/unlocks properly exist.
Coverity issue: 340835
Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c b/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c
index 973177f69..2267c5f81 100644
--- a/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c
+++ b/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c
@@ -412,15 +412,15 @@ static int axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(struct axgbe_port *pdata)
uint64_t timeout;
unsigned int mutex_id;
- if (phy_data->comm_owned)
- return 0;
-
/* The I2C and MDIO/GPIO bus is multiplexed between multiple devices,
* the driver needs to take the software mutex and then the hardware
* mutexes before being able to use the busses.
*/
pthread_mutex_lock(&pdata->phy_mutex);
+ if (phy_data->comm_owned)
+ return 0;
+
/* Clear the mutexes */
XP_IOWRITE(pdata, XP_I2C_MUTEX, AXGBE_MUTEX_RELEASE);
XP_IOWRITE(pdata, XP_MDIO_MUTEX, AXGBE_MUTEX_RELEASE);
--
2.17.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
2019-09-19 11:01 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue Pallantla Poornima
@ 2019-09-25 6:03 ` Poornima, PallantlaX
2019-10-09 8:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Poornima, PallantlaX @ 2019-09-25 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev; +Cc: Pattan, Reshma, Parthasarathy, JananeeX M, ravi1.kumar, stable
Hi,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Poornima, PallantlaX
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 4:32 PM
>To: dev@dpdk.org
>Cc: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pattan@intel.com>; Parthasarathy, JananeeX M
><jananeex.m.parthasarathy@intel.com>; ravi1.kumar@amd.com; Poornima,
>PallantlaX <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>Subject: [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
>
>One issue caught by Coverity 340835
>*unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
>*double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex while it is
>unlocked.
>
>In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
>axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
>are invoked subsequently.
>
>Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
>'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0, lock is not
>called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership() directly
>which is incorrect.
>
>Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
>During success scenario, lock is called in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
>followed by unlock in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
>In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() itself
>appropriately.
>
>The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case ensuring
>locks/unlocks properly exist.
>
>Coverity issue: 340835
>Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
>Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
>Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>
>---
> drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
Request for review.
Thanks,
Poornima
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
2019-09-19 11:01 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue Pallantla Poornima
2019-09-25 6:03 ` Poornima, PallantlaX
@ 2019-10-09 8:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-18 16:53 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2019-10-09 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pallantla Poornima, dev, ravi1.kumar
Cc: reshma.pattan, jananeex.m.parthasarathy, stable
On 9/19/2019 12:01 PM, Pallantla Poornima wrote:
> One issue caught by Coverity 340835
> *unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
> *double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
> while it is unlocked.
>
> In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
> are invoked subsequently.
>
> Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
> 'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0,
> lock is not called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
> directly which is incorrect.
>
> Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
> During success scenario, lock is called in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
> followed by unlock in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
> In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
> itself appropriately.
>
> The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case
> ensuring locks/unlocks properly exist.
>
> Coverity issue: 340835
> Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>
lgtm, 'axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()' expects 'axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()'
gets the lock. Thanks for fixing the coverity issue.
But still, Ravi can you please review/test the patch?
Thanks,
ferruh
> ---
> drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c b/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c
> index 973177f69..2267c5f81 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/axgbe/axgbe_phy_impl.c
> @@ -412,15 +412,15 @@ static int axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(struct axgbe_port *pdata)
> uint64_t timeout;
> unsigned int mutex_id;
>
> - if (phy_data->comm_owned)
> - return 0;
> -
> /* The I2C and MDIO/GPIO bus is multiplexed between multiple devices,
> * the driver needs to take the software mutex and then the hardware
> * mutexes before being able to use the busses.
> */
> pthread_mutex_lock(&pdata->phy_mutex);
>
> + if (phy_data->comm_owned)
> + return 0;
> +
> /* Clear the mutexes */
> XP_IOWRITE(pdata, XP_I2C_MUTEX, AXGBE_MUTEX_RELEASE);
> XP_IOWRITE(pdata, XP_MDIO_MUTEX, AXGBE_MUTEX_RELEASE);
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
2019-10-09 8:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2019-10-18 16:53 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-21 8:20 ` Kumar, Ravi1
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2019-10-18 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pallantla Poornima, dev, ravi1.kumar
Cc: reshma.pattan, jananeex.m.parthasarathy, stable
On 10/9/2019 9:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 9/19/2019 12:01 PM, Pallantla Poornima wrote:
>> One issue caught by Coverity 340835
>> *unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
>> *double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
>> while it is unlocked.
>>
>> In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
>> are invoked subsequently.
>>
>> Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
>> 'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0,
>> lock is not called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
>> directly which is incorrect.
>>
>> Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
>> During success scenario, lock is called in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
>> followed by unlock in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
>> In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
>> itself appropriately.
>>
>> The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case
>> ensuring locks/unlocks properly exist.
>>
>> Coverity issue: 340835
>> Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>
>
> lgtm, 'axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()' expects 'axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()'
> gets the lock. Thanks for fixing the coverity issue.
>
> But still, Ravi can you please review/test the patch?
>
If there is no objection the patch will be merged soon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
2019-10-18 16:53 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
@ 2019-10-21 8:20 ` Kumar, Ravi1
2019-10-21 9:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kumar, Ravi1 @ 2019-10-21 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit, Pallantla Poornima, dev
Cc: reshma.pattan, jananeex.m.parthasarathy, stable
>On 10/9/2019 9:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 9/19/2019 12:01 PM, Pallantla Poornima wrote:
>>> One issue caught by Coverity 340835
>>> *unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
>>> *double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex while
>>> it is unlocked.
>>>
>>> In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
>>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership() are
>>> invoked subsequently.
>>>
>>> Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
>>> 'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0, lock
>>> is not called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
>>> directly which is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
>>> During success scenario, lock is called in
>>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() followed by unlock in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
>>> In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
>>> itself appropriately.
>>>
>>> The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case
>>> ensuring locks/unlocks properly exist.
>>>
>>> Coverity issue: 340835
>>> Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>
>>
>> lgtm, 'axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()' expects 'axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()'
>> gets the lock. Thanks for fixing the coverity issue.
>>
>> But still, Ravi can you please review/test the patch?
>>
>
>If there is no objection the patch will be merged soon.
>
Looks good to me. Ok to merge.
Regards,
Ravi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue
2019-10-21 8:20 ` Kumar, Ravi1
@ 2019-10-21 9:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2019-10-21 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar, Ravi1, Pallantla Poornima, dev
Cc: reshma.pattan, jananeex.m.parthasarathy, stable
On 10/21/2019 9:20 AM, Kumar, Ravi1 wrote:
>> On 10/9/2019 9:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2019 12:01 PM, Pallantla Poornima wrote:
>>>> One issue caught by Coverity 340835
>>>> *unlock: axgbe_phy_set_mode unlocks pdata->phy_mutex
>>>> *double_unlock: axgbe_phy_sfp_detect unlocks pdata->phy_mutex while
>>>> it is unlocked.
>>>>
>>>> In axgbe_phy_sfp_detect()/axgbe_phy_set_redrv_mode(),
>>>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() and axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership() are
>>>> invoked subsequently.
>>>>
>>>> Currently in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership(), during one of the case
>>>> 'phy_data->comm_owned' is not protected and before returning 0, lock
>>>> is not called and unlock is called in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()
>>>> directly which is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, the variable 'phy_data->comm_owned' needs to be protected.
>>>> During success scenario, lock is called in
>>>> axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership() followed by unlock in axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership().
>>>> In failure case, unlock is invoked in axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()
>>>> itself appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> The fix is to protect 'phy_data->comm_owned' in the identified case
>>>> ensuring locks/unlocks properly exist.
>>>>
>>>> Coverity issue: 340835
>>>> Fixes: a5c7273771 ("net/axgbe: add phy programming APIs")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pallantla Poornima <pallantlax.poornima@intel.com>
>>>
>>> lgtm, 'axgbe_phy_put_comm_ownership()' expects 'axgbe_phy_get_comm_ownership()'
>>> gets the lock. Thanks for fixing the coverity issue.
>>>
>>> But still, Ravi can you please review/test the patch?
>>>
>>
>> If there is no objection the patch will be merged soon.
>>
> Looks good to me. Ok to merge.
(Converting to explicit Ack)
Acked-by: Ravi Kumar <ravi1.kumar@amd.com>
Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-21 9:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-19 11:01 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/axgbe: fix double unlock coverity issue Pallantla Poornima
2019-09-25 6:03 ` Poornima, PallantlaX
2019-10-09 8:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-18 16:53 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-21 8:20 ` Kumar, Ravi1
2019-10-21 9:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).