netdev - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210914060500.GA233350@mtl-vdi-166.wap.labs.mlnx>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:05:00 +0300
From:   Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
To:     <john.hurley@...ronome.com>, <sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com>,
        <ozsh@...lanox.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Questioning requirement for ASSERT_RTNL in indirect code

Hi,

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?

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?

- Eli