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: <20231009081532.07e902d4@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 08:15:32 -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 Sat, 7 Oct 2023 12:17:31 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> 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.

I think kernel assuming that this should not happen and requiring 
the PF driver to work around potentially stupid FW designs should
be entirely without our rights.