netdev - Re: [RFT net-next 4/6] eth: mlxsw: switch to explicit locking for port registration

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

Message-ID: <20220310120827.3dfee02f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:08:27 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, leonro@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFT net-next 4/6] eth: mlxsw: switch to explicit locking for
 port registration

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:17:42 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:16:30AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >Explicitly lock the devlink instance and use devl_ API.
> >
> >This will be used by the subsequent patch to invoke
> >.port_split / .port_unsplit callbacks with devlink
> >instance lock held.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>  
> 
> Looks fine. I was about to propose a helpers for the lock/unlock that
> would take mlxsw_core, but I see you are removing most of them in the
> next patch :)

Yup :) the end result should be one lock / unlock in probe and remove
paths.