netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add lockdep asserts to ____napi

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: <20220318115920.71470819@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 11:59:20 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add lockdep asserts to
 ____napi_schedule().

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:19:45 -0600 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > In your case it is "okay" since that ptr_ring_consume_bh() will do BH
> > disable/enable which forces the softirq to run. It is not obvious.  
> 
> In that case, isn't the lockdep assertion you added wrong and should
> be reverted? If correct code is hitting it, something seems wrong...

FWIW I'd lean towards revert as well, I can't think of a simple
fix that won't require work arounds in callers.