[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1e8cda49-4bc3-6f0b-29f3-97848aab18f0@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:15:42 +0300
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, dsahern@...nel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
andy@...yhouse.net, roopa@...dia.com, ast@...nel.org,
andriin@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, weiwan@...gle.com,
cong.wang@...edance.com, bjorn@...nel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: bridge: fix lockdep multicast_lock false
positive splat
On 26/04/2021 15:48, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 07:45:27PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>
>> Ugh.. that's just very ugly. :) The setup you've described above is by all means invalid, but
>> possible unfortunately. The bridge already checks if it's being added as a port to another
>> bridge, but not through multiple levels of indirection. These locks are completely unrelated
>> as they're in very different contexts (different devices).
>
> Surely we should forbid this? Otherwise what's to stop someone
> from creating a loop?
>
> Cheers,
>
Indeed that would be best, it's very easy to loop them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists