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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6f78d5e0-a8a8-463e-938c-9a9b49cf106f@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:09:38 +0800 From: Heng Qi <hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com> To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Cc: jasowang@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, yinjun.zhang@...igine.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/4] virtio-net: support rx netdim 在 2023/11/30 下午5:33, Paolo Abeni 写道: > On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 10:55 +0800, Heng Qi wrote: >> @@ -4738,11 +4881,14 @@ static void remove_vq_common(struct virtnet_info *vi) >> static void virtnet_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) >> { >> struct virtnet_info *vi = vdev->priv; >> + int i; >> >> virtnet_cpu_notif_remove(vi); >> >> /* Make sure no work handler is accessing the device. */ >> flush_work(&vi->config_work); >> + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) >> + cancel_work(&vi->rq[i].dim.work); > If the dim work is still running here, what prevents it from completing > after the following unregister/free netdev? Yes, no one here is trying to stop it, the situation is like unregister/free netdev when rss are being set, so I think this is ok. > > It looks like you want need to call cancel_work_sync here? In v4, Yinjun Zhang mentioned that _sync() can cause deadlock[1]. Therefore, cancel_work() is used here instead of cancel_work_sync() to avoid possible deadlock. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231122092939.1005591-1-yinjun.zhang@corigine.com/ > > Additionally the later remove_vq_common() will needless call > cancel_work() again; Yes. remove_vq_common() now does not call cancel_work(). > possibly is better to consolidate a single (sync) > call there. Do you mean add it in virtnet_freeze()? cancel_work() has existed in the path virtnet_freeze() -> virtnet_freeze_down() -> virtnet_close(). Thanks! > > Cheers, > > Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists