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]

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:31:29 -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 Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:37:27 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >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.  
> 
> But why is it stupid? The SF may be spawned on the same host, but it
> could be spawned on another one. The FW creates SF internally and shows
> that to the kernel. Symetrically, the FW is asked to remove SF and it
> tells to the host that the SF is going away. Flows have to go
> through FW.

In Linux the PF is what controls the SFs, right?
Privileges, configuration/admin, resource control.
How can the parent disappear and children still exist.

You can make it work with putting the proprietary FW in the center.
But Linux as a project has its own objectives.