linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink

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

Message-ID: <20250902150249.sihr23f6w5p37mpr@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 18:02:49 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking
 responsibility to phylink

On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 05:42:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Can we disable the resolver from phylink_sfp_disconnect_phy(), to offer
> a similar guarantee that phylink_disconnect_phy() never runs with a
> concurrent resolver?

Hmm, I now noticed phylink_sfp_link_down() which does disable the
resolver already. I need to test/understand whether the SFP state
machine ever calls sfp_remove_phy() without a prior sfp_link_down(), if
the link was up.