[PATCH] bnxt: prevent timer rearming during teardown

[PATCH] bnxt: prevent timer rearming during teardown

[Runyu Xiao]

bnxt_timer() checks the interface state before processing timer work, but
the final mod_timer() at bnxt_restart_timer is unconditional. If teardown
clears BNXT_STATE_OPEN while the callback is running, the callback can
rearm the timer after __bnxt_close_nic() has started deleting it.

Check BNXT_STATE_OPEN again before rearming so teardown prevents a callback
already in progress from starting another timer period.

Fixes: c0c050c58d84 ("bnxt_en: New Broadcom ethernet driver.")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Runyu Xiao <runyu.xiao@seu.edu.cn>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c
index d59bcca73..8a2e9e200 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c
@@ -14484,7 +14484,8 @@ static void bnxt_timer(struct timer_list *t)
 		bnxt_queue_sp_work(bp, BNXT_RING_COAL_NOW_SP_EVENT);
 
 bnxt_restart_timer:
-	mod_timer(&bp->timer, jiffies + bp->current_interval);
+	if (test_bit(BNXT_STATE_OPEN, &bp->state))
+		mod_timer(&bp->timer, jiffies + bp->current_interval);
 }
 
 static void bnxt_lock_sp(struct bnxt *bp)
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] bnxt: prevent timer rearming during teardown

[netdev-bot+sinfo]

Hi!

This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
commit messages seem to be missing some information:

 - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
   (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
   the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.

 - What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
   mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
   testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.

Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
then.

The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
that is the case please reply and explain.