netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/9] iavf: in iavf_down, disable queues when removing the driver

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: <CADEbmW0qw1L=Q-nb5+Cnuxm=h4RcdRKWx1Q1TgtiZdEaUWmFeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:24:59 +0200
From: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, 
	Rafal Romanowski <rafal.romanowski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/9] iavf: in iavf_down, disable queues when
 removing the driver

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 1:42 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 16:08:21 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> > From: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
> >
> > In iavf_down, we're skipping the scheduling of certain operations if
> > the driver is being removed. However, the IAVF_FLAG_AQ_DISABLE_QUEUES
> > request must not be skipped in this case, because iavf_close waits
> > for the transition to the __IAVF_DOWN state, which happens in
> > iavf_virtchnl_completion after the queues are released.
> >
> > Without this fix, "rmmod iavf" takes half a second per interface that's
> > up and prints the "Device resources not yet released" warning.
> >
> > Fixes: c8de44b577eb ("iavf: do not process adminq tasks when __IAVF_IN_REMOVE_TASK is set")
>
> This looks like a 6.6 regression, why send it for net-next?

Hi Jakub,
At first I thought I had a dependency on the preceding patch in the
series, but after rethinking and retesting it, it's actually fine to
put this patch in net.git.
Can you please do that, or will you require resending?

Thanks,
Michal