linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Require devlink lock during device reload

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 16:11:22 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, edwin.peer@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Require devlink lock during device
 reload

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:52:19 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>  
> > 
> > Looks fine to me.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>  
> 
> Traces from mlxsw / netdevsim below:

Thanks a lot for the testing Ido!

Would you mind giving my RFC a spin as well on your syzbot machinery?

Any input on the three discussion points there?

 (1) should we have a "locked" and "unlocked" API or use lock nesting?

 (2) should we expose devlink lock so that drivers can use devlink 
     as a framework for their locking needs?

 (3) should we let drivers take refs on the devlink instance?