netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 11/12] docs: net: document new locking reality

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: <Z7X8DTdjHsImfzf3@mini-arch>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:43:09 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 11/12] docs: net: document new locking reality

On 02/19, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 2/18/25 3:09 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> [...]
> > +RTNL and netdev instance lock
> > +=============================
> > +
> > +Historically, all networking control operations were protected by a single
> > +global lock known as RTNL. There is an ongoing effort to replace this global
> > +lock with separate locks for each network namespace. The netdev instance lock
> > +represents another step towards making the locking mechanism more granular.
> > +
> > +For device drivers that implement shaping or queue management APIs, all control
> > +operations will be performed under the netdev instance lock. Currently, this
> > +instance lock is acquired within the context of RTNL. In the future, there will
> > +be an option for individual drivers to opt out of using RTNL and instead
> > +perform their control operations directly under the netdev instance lock.
> > +
> > +Devices drivers are encouraged to rely on the instance lock where possible.
> 
> Possibly worth mentioning explicitly the netif_* <> dev_* helpers
> relationship?

Sure, let me try to add a sentence about that as well..