[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <169770320930.433869.5743241833039124669@kwain>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:13:29 +0200
From: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/4] net-sysfs: remove rtnl_trylock from device attributes
Quoting Greg KH (2023-10-18 18:49:18)
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 05:47:43PM +0200, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > +static inline struct kernfs_node *sysfs_rtnl_lock(struct kobject *kobj,
> > + struct attribute *attr,
> > + struct net_device *ndev)
> > +{
> > + struct kernfs_node *kn;
> > +
> > + /* First, we hold a reference to the net device we might use in the
> > + * locking section as the unregistration path might run in parallel.
> > + * This will ensure the net device won't be freed before we return.
> > + */
> > + dev_hold(ndev);
> > + /* sysfs_break_active_protection was introduced to allow self-removal of
> > + * devices and their associated sysfs files by bailing out of the
> > + * sysfs/kernfs protection. We do this here to allow the unregistration
> > + * path to complete in parallel. The following takes a reference on the
> > + * kobject and the kernfs_node being accessed.
> > + *
> > + * This works because we hold a reference onto the net device and the
> > + * unregistration path will wait for us eventually in netdev_run_todo
> > + * (outside an rtnl lock section).
> > + */
> > + kn = sysfs_break_active_protection(kobj, attr);
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!kn);
>
> If this triggers, you will end up rebooting the machines that set
> panic-on-warn, do you mean to do that? And note, the huge majority of
> Linux systems in the world have that enabled, so be careful.
Right. My understanding was this can not happen here and I added this
one as a "that should not happen and something is really wrong", as the
attribute should be valid until at least the call to
sysfs_break_active_protection.
Thanks,
Antoine
Powered by blists - more mailing lists