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  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]
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:43:03 +0100
From:   Hans Schultz <>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <>,
        Hans Schultz <>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <>,,,, Vivien Didelot <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Ivan Vecera <>,
        Roopa Prabhu <>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Ido Schimmel <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB

On ons, mar 23, 2022 at 13:21, Vladimir Oltean <> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:57:16AM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> >> >> Another issue I see, is that there is a deadlock or similar issue when
>> >> >> receiving violations and running 'bridge fdb show' (it seemed that
>> >> >> member violations also caused this, but not sure yet...), as the unit
>> >> >> freezes, not to return...
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you enabled lockdep, debug atomic sleep, detect hung tasks, things
>> >> > like that?
>> >> 
>> >> I have now determined that it is the rtnl_lock() that causes the
>> >> "deadlock". The doit() in rtnetlink.c is under rtnl_lock() and is what
>> >> takes care of getting the fdb entries when running 'bridge fdb show'. In
>> >> principle there should be no problem with this, but I don't know if some
>> >> interrupt queue is getting jammed as they are blocked from rtnetlink.c?
>> >
>> > Sorry, I forgot to respond yesterday to this.
>> > By any chance do you maybe have an AB/BA lock inversion, where from the
>> > ATU interrupt handler you do mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() -> rtnl_lock(), while
>> > from the port_fdb_dump() handler you do rtnl_lock() -> mv88e6xxx_reg_lock()?
>> If I release the mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() before calling the handler, I need
>> to get it again for the mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_loadpurge() call at least. But
>> maybe the vtu_walk also needs the mv88e6xxx_reg_lock()?
>> I could also just release the mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() before the
>> call_switchdev_notifiers() call and reacquire it immediately after?
> The cleanest way to go about this would be to have the call_switchdev_notifiers()
> portion of the ATU interrupt handling at the very end of mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_prob_irq_thread_fn(),
> with no hardware access needed, and therefore no reg_lock() held.

So something like?
	err = call_switchdev_notifiers(SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE, brport, &, NULL);

Powered by blists - more mailing lists