netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: stop calling irq_domain_add_simple with the reg

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: <20210827201357.awjqqeyjpgqtlq3b@skbuf>
Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 23:13:57 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: stop calling
 irq_domain_add_simple with the reg_lock held

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:04:14PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Ok, retarget to "net-next"?
>
> I would prefer to wait until you have finished your testing and have
> something which builds upon it. If its not broken, don't fix it...

So I'm not actually sure why lockdep only catches it when I move that
code around. Anyways, there might not be anything that builds upon it,
but I see the change as an improvement to the consistency of the locking
order anyway, regardless of whether an automated validator catches it or
not? I mean, extrapolating a bit, would you take rtnl_lock while you
already hold reg_lock, even if only at probe time where there is no
practical possibility to deadlock since the rtnl_lock would have nothing
to do with mv88e6xxx netdevs?