netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 1/1] mlxbf_gige: Fix kernel panic at shutdown

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: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:28:41 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
	Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@...dia.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, cai.huoqing@...ux.dev, brgl@...ev.pl,
	chenhao288@...ilicon.com, huangguangbin2@...wei.com,
	David Thompson <davthompson@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/1] mlxbf_gige: Fix kernel panic at shutdown

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 01:34:22PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 01:10:38PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:35:01PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > Not really sure where you're aiming with your replies at this stage.
> > 
> > My goal is to explain that "bus drivers may implement .shutdown() 
> > the same way as .remove()" is wrong implementation and expectation
> > that all drivers will add "if (!priv) return ..." now is not viable.
> 
> I never said that all drivers should guard against that - just that it's
> possible and that there is no mechanism to reject such a thing - which
> is something you've incorrectly claimed.

I was wrong in details, but in general I was correct by saying that call
to .shutdown() and .remove() callbacks are impossible to be performed
at the same time.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230612115925.GR12152@unreal

Thanks