netdev - Re: [net-next 10/11] net/mlx5e: Implement queue mgmt ops and single channel swap

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: <Z5LhKdNMO5CvAvZf@mini-arch>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:39:05 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
	Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 10/11] net/mlx5e: Implement queue mgmt ops and single
 channel swap

On 01/16, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 15:46:43 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > >We need to pay off some technical debt we accrued before we merge more
> > >queue ops implementations. Specifically the locking needs to move from
> > >under rtnl. Sorry, this is not going in for 6.14.  
> > 
> > What technical debt accrued ? I haven't seen any changes in queue API since
> > bnxt and gve got merged, what changed since then ?
> > 
> > mlx5 doesn't require rtnl if this is because of the assert, I can remove
> > it. I don't understand what this series is being deferred for, please
> > elaborate, what do I need to do to get it accepted ?
> 
> Remove the dependency on rtnl_lock _in the core kernel_.

IIUC, we want queue API to move away from rtnl and use only (new) netdev
lock. Otherwise, removing this dependency in the future might be
complicated. I'll talk to Jakub so can we can maybe get something out early
in the next merge window so you can retest the mlx5 changes on top.
Will that work? (unless, Saeed, you want to look into that core locking part
yourself)