> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
> Tantilov, Emil S
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 10:04 AM
> To: Zaremba, Larysa <[email protected]>; intel-wired-
> [email protected]; Nguyen, Anthony L <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michal Swiatkowski <[email protected]>; Chittim,
> Madhu <[email protected]>; Hay, Joshua A
> <[email protected]>; Kubiak, Michal <[email protected]>;
> Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; Andrew Lunn
> <[email protected]>; David S. Miller <[email protected]>;
> Dumazet, Eric <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>;
> Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>; Simon Horman <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net] idpf: protect shutdown from
> reset
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/10/2025 4:52 AM, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > Before the referenced commit, the shutdown just called idpf_remove(),
> > this way IDPF_REMOVE_IN_PROG was protecting us from the serv_task
> > rescheduling reset. Without this flag set the shutdown process is
> > vulnerable to HW reset or any other triggering conditions (such as
> > default mailbox being destroyed).
> >
> > When one of conditions checked in idpf_service_task becomes true,
> > vc_event_task can be rescheduled during shutdown, this leads to
> > accessing freed memory e.g. idpf_req_rel_vector_indexes() trying to
> > read
> > vport->q_vector_idxs. This in turn causes the system to become defunct
> > during e.g. systemctl kexec.
> >
> > Considering using IDPF_REMOVE_IN_PROG would lead to more heavy
> > shutdown process, instead just cancel the serv_task before cancelling
> > adapter->serv_task before cancelling adapter->vc_event_task to ensure
> > adapter->that
> > reset will not be scheduled while we are doing a shutdown.
> >
> > Fixes: 4c9106f4906a ("idpf: fix adapter NULL pointer dereference on
> > reboot")
> > Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <[email protected]>
> > ---
> Reviewed-by: Emil Tantilov <[email protected]>

Tested-by: Samuel Salin <[email protected]>

Reply via email to