[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVyEe0zH8Zo1NLFO@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:20:43 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 04/10] net: sfp: Add helper to return the
SFP bus name
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:00:58AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +const char *sfp_get_name(struct sfp_bus *bus)
> > +{
> > + if (bus->sfp_dev)
> > + return dev_name(bus->sfp_dev);
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
>
> Locking? Do you assume rtnl? Does this function need to take rtnl?
Yes, rtnl needs to be held to safely access bus->sfp_dev, and that
either needs to happen in this function, or be documented as being
requried (and ASSERT_RTNL() added here.)
The reason is that sfp_dev is the SFP socket device which can be
unbound via sfp_unregister_socket(), which will set bus->sfp_dev to
NULL. This could race with the above.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists