netdev - Re: [patch net-next v5 03/12] net/mlx5e: Create separate devlink instance for ethernet auxiliary 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:16:23 -0800
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>, <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
        <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        <tariqt@...dia.com>, <saeedm@...dia.com>, <leon@...nel.org>,
        <idosch@...dia.com>, <petrm@...dia.com>,
        <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, <gal@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v5 03/12] net/mlx5e: Create separate devlink
 instance for ethernet auxiliary device



On 1/18/2023 7:21 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> 
> The fact that devlink instance lock is held over mlx5 auxiliary devices
> probe and remove routines brought a need to conditionally take devlink
> instance lock there. The code is checking a MLX5E_LOCKED_FLOW flag
> in mlx5 priv struct.
> 
> This is racy and may lead to access devlink objects without holding
> instance lock or deadlock.
> 
> To avoid this, the only lock-wise sane solution is to make the
> devlink entities created by the auxiliary device independent on
> the original pci devlink instance. Create devlink instance for the
> auxiliary device and put the uplink port instance there alongside with
> the port health reporters.
> 

So this would make the port appear independent of the main PCI devlink.
I think that's ok, they are a separate driver and managing the
connection would be really difficult.

Ok.

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>