netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] sfc: add devlink support for ef100

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:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 19:08:22 +0000
From:   "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-net-drivers (AMD-Xilinx)" <linux-net-drivers@....com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] sfc: add devlink support for ef100


On 1/19/23 18:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:52:42 +0000 Lucero Palau, Alejandro wrote:
>> On 1/19/23 17:16, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 11:31:34 +0000 alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>>>> +		devlink_unregister(efx->devlink);
>>>> +		devlink_free(efx->devlink);
>>> Please use the devl_ APIs and take the devl_lock() explicitly.
>>> Once you start adding sub-objects the API with implicit locking
>>> gets racy.
>> I need more help here.
>>
>> The explicit locking you refer to, is it for this specific code only?
> I only had a quick look at the series, but I saw you add ports.
> So the locking should be something like:
>
>    devlink = devlink_alloc();
>    devl_lock(devlink);
>    ...
>    devl_register(devlink);
>    ...
>    netdev_register(netdev);
>    devl_port_register(port_for_the_netdev);
>    ...
>    devl_unlock();
>
> And the inverse on the .remove path.
> Basically you want to hold the devlink instance lock for most of
> the .probe and .remove. That way nothing can bother the devlink
> instance and the driver while the driver is initializing/finalizing.
>
> Without holding the lock the linking between the devlink port and
> the netdev gets a bit iffy. It's a circular dependency of sorts
> because both the netdev carries a link to the port and the port
> carries info about the netdev.
>
> We've been figuring out workarounds for subtle ordering and locking
> problems since devlink ports were created. Recently we just gave up
> and started asking drivers to hold the instance lock across .probe/
> /.remove.


OK. Thanks for the explanation.

I will add the locking.

>> Also, I can not see all drivers locking/unlocking when doing
>> devlink_unregister. Those doing it are calling code which invoke
>> unregister devlink ports, like the NFP and I think ml5x as well.
> Right, only netdevsim was fully converted so far. The syzbot and other
> testers use netdevsim mostly. We'll push actual HW drivers towards this
> locking slowly.
>
>> In this case, no devlink port remains at this point, and no netdev either.
>>
>> What is the potential race against?
> Right, I don't mean this particular spot, just over-trimmed the quote.