netdev - Re: [patch net-next] devlink: don't take instance lock for nested handle put

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20231006151446.491b5965@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:14:46 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, gal@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] devlink: don't take instance lock for nested
 handle put

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 19:07:34 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >The user creates a port on an instance A, which spawns instance B.
> >Instance A links instance B to itself.
> >Instance A cannot disappear before instance B disappears.  
> 
> It can. mlx5 port sf removal is very nice example of that. It just tells
> the FW to remove the sf and returns. The actual SF removal is spawned
> after that when processing FW events.

Isn't the PF driver processing the "FW events"? A is PF here, and B 
is SF, are you saying that the PF devlink instance can be completely
removed (not just unregistered, freed) before the SF instance is
unregistered?