From: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org
To: longli@microsoft.com
Cc: kotaranov@microsoft.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
jgg@ziepe.ca, leon@kernel.org, haiyangz@microsoft.com,
kys@microsoft.com, wei.liu@kernel.org, decui@microsoft.com,
shradhagupta@linux.microsoft.com, horms@kernel.org,
ernis@linux.microsoft.com, stephen@networkplumber.org,
shirazsaleem@microsoft.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] net: mana: give each HWC message slot its own completion state
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2026 20:02:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <178863854264.219967.12861557359369286638@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260901200018.3194525-3-longli@microsoft.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
issue(s) to consider:
Critical: 0 · High: 0 (2) · Medium: 2 (2) · Low: 0
- [Medium] Undisclosed behavioural changes bundled into a patch whose
changelog says "No functional change is intended" and never mentions…
- [Medium] The patch adds a guard in mana_gd_query_hwc_timeout()
(gdma_main.c:343) plus an in-tree comment declaring that a device-…
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] mana_hwc_rx_event_handler()
(drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/hw_channel.c:315-318) returns…
- [High] mana_gd_query_hwc_timeout() sanitises only the zero case of the
device-reported timeout and still accepts any other u32 (`struct…
- [Medium] DISCARDED (fixed later in this series).
- [Medium] DISCARDED (fixed later in this series).
--
net: mana: give each HWC message slot its own completion state
Each HWC message slot gains a per-slot spinlock, a refcount held by the
sender and the response handler, and a responded flag, so the sender's
timeout path and mana_hwc_handle_resp() can own the slot independently.
ctx->error also changes from u32 to int, and mana_gd_query_hwc_timeout()
now ignores a device-reported timeout of zero.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> index f92b2d0bf926e..a023d3e1a95de 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> @@ -331,7 +331,13 @@ static int mana_gd_query_hwc_timeout(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 *timeout_val)
> if (err || resp.hdr.status)
> return err ? err : -EPROTO;
>
> - *timeout_val = resp.timeout_ms;
> + /* Zero is the driver's own "do not wait, do not log" sentinel, set by
> + * mana_serv_reset() when the HWC has stopped responding. A zero from
> + * the device would enter that state instead: ignore it and keep the
> + * caller's positive value.
> + */
> + if (resp.timeout_ms)
> + *timeout_val = resp.timeout_ms;
>
> return 0;
> }
[Severity: Medium]
The changelog says "No functional change is intended at the current queue
depth of one" and never mentions gdma_main.c, but this hunk changes
behaviour on its own. The caller is:
mana_gd_query_hwc_timeout(pdev, &hwc->hwc_timeout);
and hwc_timeout == 0 is the driver's own sentinel:
mana_need_log():
if (hwc && hwc->hwc_timeout == 0)
return false;
So a device answering GDMA_QUERY_HWC_TIMEOUT with 0 previously disabled
all HWC waiting and all HWC logging. Is this hunk a fix that wants its
own patch and a Fixes: tag rather than being folded into a preparation
patch?
Two further semantic changes in mana_hwc_send_request() are not described
either. The timeout path now reports a response that raced in after the
wait expired:
if (err != -EINPROGRESS) {
hwc_ctx_put(hwc, ctx);
goto check_status;
}
which returns that response's status (possibly -EPROTO) instead of
-ETIMEDOUT, and skips the hwc->hwc_timeout = 1 clamp. And the new
"!ctx->output_buf || ctx->responded" gate in mana_hwc_handle_resp() stops
a response arriving after its sender timed out from being memcpy'd through
a stale ctx->output_buf that usually pointed into a dead stack frame.
Could the changelog spell these out, or could they be split off?
[Severity: Medium]
The new comment states that a device-supplied value of 0 must be rejected
because 0 is reserved for internal driver state. The other writer of the
same field, fed from the same device-controlled source, is not changed:
mana_hwc_init_event_handler():
case HWC_DATA_CFG_HWC_TIMEOUT:
hwc->hwc_timeout = val;
break;
Can a GDMA_EQE_HWC_SOC_RECONFIG_DATA event carrying HWC_DATA_CFG_HWC_TIMEOUT
with val == 0 install exactly the state this guard is meant to prevent?
msecs_to_jiffies(0) would make every subsequent command expire at once,
mana_hwc_send_request() would take the new "No-wait teardown
(hwc_timeout == 0) is expected to expire" branch for ordinary commands
(skipping both the error log and the clamp), and mana_need_log() would
suppress the diagnostics.
Should the zero check live where hwc_timeout is assigned, so both ingest
points agree?
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/hw_channel.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/hw_channel.c
> index 75fdccdc8c482..0056bdd8c53f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/hw_channel.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/hw_channel.c
> @@ -19,6 +21,17 @@ static int mana_hwc_get_msg_index(struct hw_channel_context *hwc, u16 *msg_id)
> index = find_first_zero_bit(hwc->inflight_msg_res.map,
> hwc->inflight_msg_res.size);
>
> + ctx = &hwc->caller_ctx[index];
> + reinit_completion(&ctx->comp_event);
> + /* Take both references (sender + handle_resp) before publishing the
> + * slot, so an early response cannot free it under the sender.
> + */
> + refcount_set(&ctx->refcnt, 2);
> + ctx->responded = false;
> + ctx->msg_id = index;
> + ctx->error = -EINPROGRESS;
> +
> + /* Publish the slot last, after it is fully initialised. */
> bitmap_set(hwc->inflight_msg_res.map, index, 1);
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->lock, flags);
> @@ -40,6 +53,13 @@ static void mana_hwc_put_msg_index(struct hw_channel_context *hwc, u16 msg_id)
> up(&hwc->sema);
> }
>
> +static void hwc_ctx_put(struct hw_channel_context *hwc,
> + struct hwc_caller_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&ctx->refcnt))
> + mana_hwc_put_msg_index(hwc, ctx->msg_id);
> +}
> +
[ ... ]
> @@ -90,22 +110,35 @@ static void mana_hwc_handle_resp(struct hw_channel_context *hwc, u32 resp_len,
> }
>
> ctx = hwc->caller_ctx + msg_id;
> - err = mana_hwc_verify_resp_msg(ctx, resp_msg, resp_len);
> - if (err)
> - goto out;
>
> - ctx->status_code = resp_msg->status;
> + spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
>
> - memcpy(ctx->output_buf, resp_msg, resp_len);
> -out:
> + /* Honour a response only while the sender owns the slot (output_buf
> + * published) and has not already been answered; otherwise drop it as
> + * premature, stale or duplicate without touching the refcount.
> + */
> + if (!ctx->output_buf || ctx->responded) {
> + spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
> + mana_hwc_post_rx_wqe(hwc->rxq, rx_req);
> + return;
> + }
> + ctx->responded = true;
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but every drop path in
mana_hwc_handle_resp() now carefully reposts the RX WQE, including the new
premature/stale/duplicate path above and the invalid-bitmap-bit path, while
the caller still has one path that does not:
mana_hwc_rx_event_handler():
msg_id = READ_ONCE(resp->response.hwc_msg_id);
if (msg_id >= hwc->num_inflight_msg) {
dev_err(hwc->dev, "HWC RX: wrong msg_id=%u\n", msg_id);
return;
}
rx_req has already been resolved at that point, and RX WQEs are armed only
once at bring-up:
mana_hwc_test_channel():
for (i = 0; i < q_depth; i++) {
req = &hwc_rxq->msg_buf->reqs[i];
err = mana_hwc_post_rx_wqe(hwc_rxq, req);
afterwards they are only re-armed from mana_hwc_handle_resp(). Since
msg_id comes from the shared DMA response buffer, can a host writing a
value >= hwc->num_inflight_msg drop the only RQ buffer at the bootstrap
depth of one, leaving every later mana_hwc_send_request() to time out
forever? The same early return is still there at the end of the series.
>
> + err = mana_hwc_verify_resp_msg(ctx, resp_msg, resp_len);
> + if (!err) {
> + ctx->status_code = resp_msg->status;
> + memcpy(ctx->output_buf, resp_msg, resp_len);
> + }
> ctx->error = err;
>
> - /* Must post rx wqe before complete(), otherwise the next rx may
> - * hit no_wqe error.
> + /* Post RX WQE before completing — the next response may arrive
> + * immediately and needs a posted buffer.
> */
> mana_hwc_post_rx_wqe(hwc->rxq, rx_req);
> -
> complete(&ctx->comp_event);
> + spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
> +
> + hwc_ctx_put(hwc, ctx);
> }
[Severity: Medium]
This is a pre-existing ordering issue rather than something this patch
introduces, but the patch adds more accesses after complete().
mana_hwc_destroy_channel() frees the work queues before the CQ/EQ:
if (hwc->txq)
mana_hwc_destroy_wq(hwc, hwc->txq);
if (hwc->rxq)
mana_hwc_destroy_wq(hwc, hwc->rxq);
if (hwc->cq)
mana_hwc_destroy_cq(hwc->gdma_dev->gdma_context, hwc->cq);
and only mana_hwc_destroy_cq() reaches mana_gd_deregiser_irq(), whose
list_del_rcu() plus synchronize_rcu() fences off an in-flight EQ handler.
hwc->rxq and hwc->txq are not set to NULL either.
If mana_smc_teardown_hwc() failed and the device still delivers a response
in that window, can mana_hwc_post_rx_wqe(hwc->rxq, rx_req) here touch the
freed hwc_wq and msg_buf? The hwc_ctx_put(hwc, ctx) added after complete()
also touches ctx->refcnt, ctx->msg_id, hwc->inflight_msg_res and hwc->sema.
For the record, the destroy order is corrected later in this series, where
the CQ is destroyed before the TXQ and RQ after channel_up is cleared and
active_senders drained, so this comment only applies to the intermediate
state at this commit.
[ ... ]
> @@ -902,43 +952,108 @@ int mana_hwc_send_request(struct hw_channel_context *hwc, u32 req_len,
> dest_vrcq = hwc->pf_dest_vrcq_id;
> }
>
> + /* The response-side reference (from get_msg_index) keeps the slot
> + * alive if hardware responds right after the doorbell.
> + */
> err = mana_hwc_post_tx_wqe(txq, tx_wr, dest_vrq, dest_vrcq, false);
> if (err) {
> dev_err(hwc->dev, "HWC: Failed to post send WQE: %d\n", err);
> goto out;
> }
>
> + wait_ms = hwc->hwc_timeout;
> if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&ctx->comp_event,
> - (msecs_to_jiffies(hwc->hwc_timeout)))) {
> + msecs_to_jiffies(wait_ms))) {
[Severity: High]
This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the patch hardens the
same assignment against the benign value while leaving the damaging one
unchecked. resp.timeout_ms is a plain u32 and lands directly in
hwc->hwc_timeout, so wait_ms here is fully device-controlled.
__msecs_to_jiffies() returns MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET for any value whose signed
interpretation is negative, i.e. >= 0x80000000, and
wait_for_completion_timeout() sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
Can a device that reports timeout_ms = 0xffffffff and then stops answering
wedge the calling thread indefinitely, with no way to kill it? Even
0x7fffffff gives roughly a 24 day wait, and HWC commands are issued from
paths holding rtnl_lock. The event path in mana_hwc_init_event_handler()
stores up to 0xffffff ms unbounded as well. Would a clamp against a sane
maximum at both writers be appropriate? The gap is still present at the
end of the series.
[ ... ]
> out:
> - mana_hwc_put_msg_index(hwc, msg_id);
> + /* Error, no-wait teardown, or timeout: drop the sender's and the
> + * response-side references. Latch ->responded so a racing response
> + * is a no-op, and only drop the response-side ref if it has not.
> + */
> + ctx = hwc->caller_ctx + msg_id;
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags);
> + ctx->output_buf = NULL;
> + drop_resp_ref = !ctx->responded;
> + ctx->responded = true;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags);
> + if (drop_resp_ref)
> + refcount_dec(&ctx->refcnt);
> + hwc_ctx_put(hwc, ctx);
> +done:
> return err;
> }
[Severity: Medium]
This is pre-existing behaviour rather than something the patch introduces,
and the changelog already acknowledges it, but it may be worth spelling out
what happens in this intermediate state.
On a genuine timeout this path drops both references, so
mana_hwc_put_msg_index() clears the bitmap bit and posts the semaphore
while a response for that msg_id may still be in flight.
mana_hwc_get_msg_index() then hands the same index (always 0 at depth one)
to the next command and resets the slot:
refcount_set(&ctx->refcnt, 2);
ctx->responded = false;
so the old response passes the gate in mana_hwc_handle_resp():
if (!ctx->output_buf || ctx->responded) {
Does that mean the stale payload is memcpy'd into the new caller's buffer,
ctx->error set to 0, and complete() waking the new sender, which returns
success carrying another command's response?
The next patch in the series keeps the response-side reference across a
timeout so the slot is never handed out again until the device answers,
which removes this window; the note is only about the state at this commit.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260901200018.3194525-1-longli%40microsoft.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-05 20:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-01 20:00 [PATCH net-next v4 0/4] net: mana: concurrent HWC requests and dynamic queue depth Long Li
2026-09-01 20:00 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/4] net: mana: track when the HWC has been handed to the PF Long Li
2026-09-02 20:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-02 20:04 ` [EXTERNAL] " Long Li
2026-09-05 20:02 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-09-01 20:00 ` [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] net: mana: give each HWC message slot its own completion state Long Li
2026-09-05 20:02 ` netdev-bot+sashiko [this message]
2026-09-01 20:00 ` [PATCH net-next v4 3/4] net: mana: support concurrent HWC requests Long Li
2026-09-05 20:02 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-09-01 20:00 ` [PATCH net-next v4 4/4] net: mana: add dynamic HWC queue depth with reinit path Long Li
2026-09-02 20:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-02 20:04 ` [EXTERNAL] " Long Li
2026-09-05 20:02 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=178863854264.219967.12861557359369286638@kernel.org \
--to=netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=decui@microsoft.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=ernis@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=haiyangz@microsoft.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=kotaranov@microsoft.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kys@microsoft.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longli@microsoft.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shirazsaleem@microsoft.com \
--cc=shradhagupta@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=wei.liu@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.