netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: devmem: don't call queue stop / start when the interface is down

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250205172632.61f41a06@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:26:32 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: devmem: don't call queue stop / start
 when the interface is down

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:35:30 -0800 Mina Almasry wrote:
> Why not return an error if !netif_running(), and change the call site
> in net_devmem_unbind_dmabuf() to not call into this if
> !netif_running()? Is that a bit cleaner? It feels a bit weird to have
> netdev_rx_queue_restart() do a bunch of allocations and driver calls
> unnecessarily when it's really not going to do anything, no?

The bindings survive ifdown, right? So presumably they exist while 
the device is down. If they exist while the device is down, why can
they not be created? Feels inconsistent.