netdev - Re: [net-next 3/6] ixgbe: release lock for the duration of ixgbe_suspend

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: <9ee4abce-0841-374d-5395-0c5170880eb1@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 07:37:32 -0400
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 3/6] ixgbe: release lock for the duration of
 ixgbe_suspend_close()

      * parallelized this function, so drop lock for the
> 
>     Parallelizing? Else the sentence doesn't parse for me. :-)

Hi Sergei,

In a separate series I parallelized device_shutdown(), see:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180516024004.28977-1-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com

But, this particular patch should be dropped, as discussed in this thread:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180503035931.22439-2-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com


Alexander Duyck, made a point that a generic RTNL scalability fix should be done. This particular patch might introduce a race, since it relies on assumption that RTNL is not needed in this place because  ixgbe_close() does not have it, but Alexander Duyck, says that the callers of ixgbe_close() are assumed to own this lock.

Thank you,
Pavel