lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2025]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 net 1/2] net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl->phydev writes with resolver
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 06:31:20PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 04:26:35PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 06:23:47PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > @@ -2305,6 +2314,7 @@ void phylink_disconnect_phy(struct phylink *pl)
> > >
> > > phy = pl->phydev;
> > > if (phy) {
> > > + mutex_lock(&pl->phy_lock);
> >
> > If we can, I think it would be better to place this a couple of lines
> > above and move the unlock.
>
> Sorry for potentially misunderstanding, do you mean like this?
>
> mutex_lock(&pl->phy_lock);
> phy = pl->phydev;
> if (phy) {
> mutex_lock(&phy->lock);
> mutex_lock(&pl->state_mutex);
> pl->phydev = NULL;
> pl->phy_enable_tx_lpi = false;
> pl->mac_tx_clk_stop = false;
> mutex_unlock(&pl->state_mutex);
> mutex_unlock(&phy->lock);
> mutex_unlock(&pl->phy_lock);
> flush_work(&pl->resolve);
>
> phy_disconnect(phy);
> } else {
> mutex_unlock(&pl->phy_lock);
> }
>
> move the unlock where? because flush_work(&pl->resolve) needs to happen
> unlocked, otherwise we'll deadlock with phylink_resolve().
>
> Additionally, dereferincing pl->phydev under rtnl_lock() is already safe,
> and doesn't need the secondary clock.

The reason I'm making the suggestion is for consistency. If the lock
is there to ensure that reading pl->phydev is done safely, having one
site where we read it and then take the lock makes it look confusing.
I've also been thinking that it should be called pl->phydev_mutex
(note that phylink uses _mutex for mutexes.)

To avoid it looking weird, what about this:

mutex_lock(&pl->phy_lock);
phy = pl->phydev;
if (phy) {
mutex_lock(&phy->lock);
mutex_lock(&pl->state_mutex);
pl->phydev = NULL;
pl->phy_enable_tx_lpi = false;
pl->mac_tx_clk_stop = false;
mutex_unlock(&pl->state_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&phy->lock);
}
mutex_unlock(&pl->phy_lock);

if (phy)
flush_work(&pl->resolve);

phy_disconnect(phy);
}


--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2025-09-03 17:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog