[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YYABqfFy//g5Gdis@nanopsycho>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 16:03:05 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, idosch@...sch.org, edwin.peer@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Require devlink lock during device
reload
Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 06:35:56PM CET, leon@...nel.org wrote:
>From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>
>Devlink reload was implemented as a special command which does _SET_
>operation, but doesn't take devlink->lock, while recursive devlink
>calls that were part of .reload_up()/.reload_down() sequence took it.
>
>This fragile flow was possible due to holding a big devlink lock
>(devlink_mutex), which effectively stopped all devlink activities,
>even unrelated to reloaded devlink.
>
>So let's make sure that devlink reload behaves as other commands and
>use special nested locking primitives with a depth of 1. Such change
>opens us to a venue of removing devlink_mutex completely, while keeping
>devlink locking complexity in devlink.c.
>
>Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
Looks fine to me.
Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists