linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] team: fix possible deadlock in team_port_change

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

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

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

Message-ID: <20240801174958.050db514@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:49:58 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jeongjun Park <aha310510@...il.com>
Cc: jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 syzbot+b668da2bc4cb9670bf58@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] team: fix possible deadlock in
 team_port_change_check

On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:51:19 +0900 Jeongjun Park wrote:
> > You didn't even run this thru checkpatch, let alone the fact that its
> > reimplementing nested locks (or trying to) :(
> >
> > Some of the syzbot reports are not fixed because they are either hard
> > or because there is a long standing disagreement on how to solve them.
> > Please keep that in mind.  
> 
> Okay, but I have a question. Is it true that team devices can also be
> protected through rtnl? As far as I know, rtnl only protects net_device,
> so I didn't think about removing the lock for team->lock.

Yes, but I think that gets us into the "long standing disagreement"
territory :) You may be able to find previous attempt to remove
team->lock in the mailing list archive.