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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ZSEwO+1pLuV6F6K/@nanopsycho>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2023 12:17:31 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 12:14:46AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>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?

Kernel-wise, yes. The FW probably holds necessary resource until SF goes
away.