Re: [PATCH net-next v5 12/12] net: airoha: Better handle MIB for GDM with multiple port attached
Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]> Mon, 11 May 2026 08:51:06 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.sashiko,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <agF8WhrU8lTIyOjX@lore-desk> |
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: > - [Medium] Moving the statistics lock from the port level to the device level introduces a race condition on shared hardware registers, causing cross-interface statistics corruption. > -- > > commit 29334a9bde18f0777df549f0d135356a4b8bd3ee > Author: Christian Marangi <[email protected]> > > net: airoha: Better handle MIB for GDM with multiple port attached > > This commit enables a split MIB feature for GDM3/4 to track counters per > hardware channel instead of per GDM port. It moves the statistics structure, > including its protecting lock, from the port level to the device level. > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c > > index 623cac42dfb71..b1a6586293457 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/airoha/airoha_eth.c > > @@ -1621,143 +1621,150 @@ static void airoha_update_hw_stats(struct airoha_gdm_dev *dev) > > struct airoha_eth *eth = dev->eth; > > u32 val, i = 0; > > > > - spin_lock(&port->stats.lock); > > - u64_stats_update_begin(&port->stats.syncp); > > + spin_lock(&dev->stats.lock); > > + u64_stats_update_begin(&dev->stats.syncp); > > + > > + /* Read relevant MIB for GDM with multiple port attached */ > > + if (port->id == AIROHA_GDM3_IDX || port->id == AIROHA_GDM4_IDX) > > + airoha_fe_rmw(eth, REG_FE_GDM_MIB_CFG(port->id), > > + FE_TX_MIB_ID_MASK | FE_RX_MIB_ID_MASK, > > + FIELD_PREP(FE_TX_MIB_ID_MASK, dev->nbq) | > > + FIELD_PREP(FE_RX_MIB_ID_MASK, dev->nbq)); > > Does moving the lock from the port to the device level introduce a race > condition on the shared port MIB registers? > > Because ndo_get_stats64 can be called concurrently without the RTNL lock, if two > CPUs request stats for two different devices on the same port: > > CPU1 calls airoha_update_hw_stats() for dev_A: > spin_lock(&dev_A->stats.lock); > airoha_fe_rmw(..., REG_FE_GDM_MIB_CFG(port->id), ... dev_A->nbq); > > CPU2 concurrently calls airoha_update_hw_stats() for dev_B: > spin_lock(&dev_B->stats.lock); > airoha_fe_rmw(..., REG_FE_GDM_MIB_CFG(port->id), ... dev_B->nbq); > > Could CPU1 then read the hardware counters for dev_B instead of dev_A? ack, I will fix it in v6. > > [ ... ] > > > /* reset mib counters */ > > airoha_fe_set(eth, REG_FE_GDM_MIB_CLEAR(port->id), > > FE_GDM_MIB_RX_CLEAR_MASK | FE_GDM_MIB_TX_CLEAR_MASK); > > When CPU1 then clears the counters here, could it wipe out the unread > hardware statistics for dev_B? > > Is a port-level lock still needed to exclusively protect access to these shared > hardware MIB registers across multiple devices? ack, I will fix it in v6. Regards, Lorenzo > > -- > Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=12
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 228 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQTquNwa3Txd3rGGn7Y6cBh0uS2trAUCagF8WgAKCRA6cBh0uS2t rLKuAQCVHo9zxxc0/M/2vdNjL4owOrzT2rbvhRnV2L78lFsMGQEAwZmw0aUtbQ2O JQuPuqSO4Bf8fRR28FMUTzXWBp1DRgM= =4akk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----