netdev - Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH V5 2/11] IB/ipoib: Notify the world before doing unregister

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:	Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:34:46 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Moni Shoua <monisonlists@...il.com>
Cc:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	OpenFabrics General <general@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH V5 2/11] IB/ipoib: Notify the world before	doing unregister

 > The action in bonding to a detach of slave is to unregister the master (see patch 10).
 > This can't be done from the context of unregister_netdevice itself (it is protected by rtnl_lock).

I'm confused.  Your patch has:

 > +		ipoib_slave_detach(cpriv->dev);
 >  		unregister_netdev(cpriv->dev);

And ipoib_slave_detach() is:

 > +static inline void ipoib_slave_detach(struct net_device *dev)
 > +{
 > +	rtnl_lock();
 > +	netdev_slave_detach(dev);
 > +	rtnl_unlock();
 > +}

so you are calling netdev_slave_detach() with the rtnl lock held.
Why can't you make the same call from the start of unregister_netdevice()?

Anyway, if the rtnl lock is a problem, can you just add the call to
netdev_slave_detach() to unregister_netdev() before it takes the rtnl lock?

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html