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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:26:29 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com> Cc: <john.hurley@...ronome.com>, <sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com>, <ozsh@...lanox.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Questioning requirement for ASSERT_RTNL in indirect code On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:05:00 +0300 Eli Cohen wrote: > I see the same assert and the same comment, "All callback list access > should be protected by RTNL.", in the following locations > > drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_tc.c:1873 > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/rep/tc.c:303 > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/offload.c:1770 > > I assume the source of this comment is the same. Can you guys explain > why is this necessary? Because most drivers (all but mlx5?) depend on rtnl_lock for serializing tc offload operations. > Currently, with > 74fc4f828769 ("net: Fix offloading indirect devices dependency on qdisc order creation" > > the assert will emit a warning into dmesg with no other noticable > effect. I am thinking maybe we need to remove this assert. > > Comments? rtnl_lock must be held unless unlocked_driver_cb is set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists