netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init

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: <Z3u0q5HSOshLn2V0@fedora>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 10:47:07 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init

On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 11:33:34AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > Re-locking doesn't look great, glancing at the code I don't see any
> > > obvious better workarounds. Easiest fix would be to don't let the
> > > drivers sleep in the callbacks and then we can go back to a spin lock.
> > > Maybe nvidia people have better ideas, I'm not familiar with this
> > > offload.
> > 
> > I don't know how to disable bonding sleeping since we use mutex_lock now.
> > Hi Jianbo, do you have any idea?
> > 
> 
> I think we should allow drivers to sleep in the callbacks. So, maybe it's
> better to move driver's xdo_dev_state_delete out of state's spin lock.

I just check the code, xfrm_dev_state_delete() and later
dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x) have too many xfrm_state x
checks. Can we really move it out of spin lock from xfrm_state_delete()

Thanks
Hangbin