RE: [EXT] Re: [net-next PATCH] octeontx2-af: Fix multicast/mirror group lock/unlock issue

[Suman Ghosh]

>
>> @@ -6306,6 +6310,13 @@ int
>rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_destroy(struct rvu *rvu,
>>  		return err;
>>
>>  	mcast_grp = &nix_hw->mcast_grp;
>> +
>> +	/* If AF is requesting for the deletion,
>> +	 * then AF is already taking the lock
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!req->is_af)
>> +		mutex_lock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
>> +
>>  	elem = rvu_nix_mcast_find_grp_elem(mcast_grp, req->mcast_grp_idx);
>>  	if (!elem)
>
>Hi Suman,
>
>Does mcast_grp_lock need to be released here?
>If so, I would suggest a goto label, say unlock_grp.
[Suman] ack, will update in v2
>
>>  		return NIX_AF_ERR_INVALID_MCAST_GRP; @@ -6333,12 +6344,6 @@
>int
>> rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_destroy(struct rvu *rvu,
>>  	mutex_unlock(&mcast->mce_lock);
>>
>>  delete_grp:
>> -	/* If AF is requesting for the deletion,
>> -	 * then AF is already taking the lock
>> -	 */
>> -	if (!req->is_af)
>> -		mutex_lock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
>> -
>>  	list_del(&elem->list);
>>  	kfree(elem);
>>  	mcast_grp->count--;
>> @@ -6370,9 +6375,20 @@ int
>rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_update(struct rvu *rvu,
>>  		return err;
>>
>>  	mcast_grp = &nix_hw->mcast_grp;
>> +
>> +	/* If AF is requesting for the updation,
>> +	 * then AF is already taking the lock
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!req->is_af)
>> +		mutex_lock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
>> +
>>  	elem = rvu_nix_mcast_find_grp_elem(mcast_grp, req->mcast_grp_idx);
>> -	if (!elem)
>> +	if (!elem) {
>> +		if (!req->is_af)
>> +			mutex_unlock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
>> +
>>  		return NIX_AF_ERR_INVALID_MCAST_GRP;
>> +	}
>>
>>  	/* If any pcifunc matches the group's pcifunc, then we can
>>  	 * delete the entire group.
>> @@ -6383,8 +6399,11 @@ int
>rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_update(struct rvu *rvu,
>>  				/* Delete group */
>>  				dreq.hdr.pcifunc = elem->pcifunc;
>>  				dreq.mcast_grp_idx = elem->mcast_grp_idx;
>> -				dreq.is_af = req->is_af;
>> +				dreq.is_af = 1;
>>  				rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_destroy(rvu, &dreq,
>NULL);
>> +				if (!req->is_af)
>> +					mutex_unlock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
>> +
>>  				return 0;
>>  			}
>>  		}
>> @@ -6467,5 +6486,8 @@ int rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_update(struct
>> rvu *rvu,
>>
>>  done:
>
>I think it would be good to rename this label, say unlock_mce;
[Suman] ack, will update in v2
>
>>  	mutex_unlock(&mcast->mce_lock);
>
>Add a new label here, say unlock_grp;
>And jump to this label whenever there is a need for the mutex_unlock()
>below.
[Suman] ack, will update in v2
>
>> +	if (!req->is_af)
>> +		mutex_unlock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
>> +
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>