netdev - Re: Questioning requirement for ASSERT

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: <20210914163233.GA10664@mtl-vdi-166.wap.labs.mlnx>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:32:33 +0300
From:   Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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, Sep 14, 2021 at 08:07:46AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:54:39 +0300 Eli Cohen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 07:26:29AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >   
> > 
> > But the assert I am referring to is called as part of setting up the
> > callback that will be used for offload operations, e.g. for adding a new
> > filter with tc. It's not the actual filter insetion code.
> > 
> > And as far as I can see this call sequence is already serialized by
> > flow_indr_block_lock.
> 
> Hm, indeed, should've looked at the code. There doesn't seem to be
> anything on the driver side this is protecting. The assert was added
> before the flow/nftables rewrite of the infra, perhaps that's the
> answer. IOW the lock did not exist back then.

ok, so if there are no objections by my next morning, I will post a
patch to remove these.