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: <20231010075231.322ced83@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 07:52:31 -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 Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:31:20 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> In Linux the PF is what controls the SFs, right?
>> Privileges, configuration/admin, resource control.
>> How can the parent disappear and children still exist.  
> 
> It's not like the PF instance disappears, the devlink port related to
> the SF is removed. Whan user does it, driver asks FW to shutdown the SF.
> That invokes FW flow which eventually leads to event delivered back to
> driver that removes the SF instance itself.

You understand what I'm saying tho, right?

If we can depend on the parent not disappearing before the child,
and the hierarchy is a DAG - the locking is much easier, because
parent can lock the child.

If it's only nVidia that put the control in hands of FW we shouldn't
complicate the core for y'all.