[PATCH] move smp_rmb() after load of status

[humbabek <humbabek@gmail.com>]

Signed-off-by: humbabek <humbabek@gmail.com>
---
 net/packet/af_packet.c | 17 +++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index 57634bc3da74..91830ef07c48 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -394,25 +394,30 @@ static void __packet_set_status(struct packet_sock *po, void *frame, int status)
 static int __packet_get_status(struct packet_sock *po, void *frame)
 {
 	union tpacket_uhdr h;
-
-	smp_rmb();
+	int status;
 
 	h.raw = frame;
 	switch (po->tp_version) {
 	case TPACKET_V1:
 		flush_dcache_page(pgv_to_page(&h.h1->tp_status));
-		return h.h1->tp_status;
+		status = h.h1->tp_status;
+		break;
 	case TPACKET_V2:
 		flush_dcache_page(pgv_to_page(&h.h2->tp_status));
-		return h.h2->tp_status;
+		status = h.h2->tp_status;
+		break;
 	case TPACKET_V3:
 		flush_dcache_page(pgv_to_page(&h.h3->tp_status));
-		return h.h3->tp_status;
+		status = h.h3->tp_status;
+		break;
 	default:
 		WARN(1, "TPACKET version not supported.\n");
 		BUG();
-		return 0;
+		status = 0;
+		break;
 	}
+	smp_rmb();
+	return status;
 }
 
 static __u32 tpacket_get_timestamp(struct sk_buff *skb, struct timespec *ts,
-- 
2.17.1

Sorry for a lack of information- it is the first my patch. 

The opposie smp_wmb() is in: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.15/source/net/packet/af_packet.c#L415

On my eye smp_rmb() should be moved *after* actual read of status to be ensured that no read after __packet_get_status() happens before actual read of status.

Note, that tpacket_snd() polls a ring [https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.15/source/net/packet/af_packet.c#L2677], possibly waiting for a published packet (by published I mean a packet with a TP_STATUS_SEND_REQUEST status).

It is important to have a guarantee that no load was reordered before we know the status, isn't it?

Please note that it is possible that I am wrong, so please take this into account. However, if I am wrong please let me know. 

>From the other side, what is the point to place smp_rmb() before read of status?