Commit 9cbbc451 authored by Edward Cree's avatar Edward Cree Committed by David S. Miller

sfc: take correct lock in ef100_reset()

When downing and upping the ef100 filter table, we need to take a write
 lock on efx->filter_sem, not just a read lock, because we may kfree()
 the table pointers.
Without this, resets cause a WARN_ON from efx_rwsem_assert_write_locked().

Fixes: a9dc3d56 ("sfc_ef100: RX filter table management and related gubbins")
Signed-off-by: default avatarEdward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarJesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent db06ea34
......@@ -431,18 +431,18 @@ static int ef100_reset(struct efx_nic *efx, enum reset_type reset_type)
/* A RESET_TYPE_ALL will cause filters to be removed, so we remove filters
* and reprobe after reset to avoid removing filters twice
*/
down_read(&efx->filter_sem);
down_write(&efx->filter_sem);
ef100_filter_table_down(efx);
up_read(&efx->filter_sem);
up_write(&efx->filter_sem);
rc = efx_mcdi_reset(efx, reset_type);
if (rc)
return rc;
netif_device_attach(efx->net_dev);
down_read(&efx->filter_sem);
down_write(&efx->filter_sem);
rc = ef100_filter_table_up(efx);
up_read(&efx->filter_sem);
up_write(&efx->filter_sem);
if (rc)
return rc;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment