netdev - [PATCH net-next] devlink: Remove extra device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <8bbcc624cf574a1f491a674e436dbd0673cb0127.1634629765.git.leonro@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:49:54 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Remove extra device_lock assert checks

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>

PCI core code in the pci_call_probe() has a path that doesn't hold
device_lock. It happens because the ->probe() is called through the
workqueue mechanism.

   349 static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
   350                           const struct pci_device_id *id)
   351 {
   352
....
   377         if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
   378                 error = work_on_cpu(cpu, local_pci_probe, &ddi);

Luckily enough, the core still ensures that only single flow is executed,
so it safe to remove the assert checks that anyway were added for annotations
purposes.

Fixes: b88f7b1203bf ("devlink: Annotate devlink API calls")
Reported-by: Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
---
 net/core/devlink.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/devlink.c b/net/core/devlink.c
index 3ce6147a2fe8..3464854015a2 100644
--- a/net/core/devlink.c
+++ b/net/core/devlink.c
@@ -9147,7 +9147,6 @@ void devlink_register(struct devlink *devlink)
 {
 	ASSERT_DEVLINK_NOT_REGISTERED(devlink);
 	/* Make sure that we are in .probe() routine */
-	device_lock_assert(devlink->dev);
 
 	mutex_lock(&devlink_mutex);
 	xa_set_mark(&devlinks, devlink->index, DEVLINK_REGISTERED);
@@ -9165,7 +9164,6 @@ void devlink_unregister(struct devlink *devlink)
 {
 	ASSERT_DEVLINK_REGISTERED(devlink);
 	/* Make sure that we are in .remove() routine */
-	device_lock_assert(devlink->dev);
 
 	devlink_put(devlink);
 	wait_for_completion(&devlink->comp);
-- 
2.31.1