netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: page_pool: replace ASSERT_RTNL() in page_pool

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: <86802849-6374-4146-a141-b34740463d26@davidwei.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:24:48 -0700
From: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: page_pool: replace ASSERT_RTNL() in
 page_pool_init()

On 2025-03-23 19:39, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 03/23, David Wei wrote:
>> Replace a stray ASSERT_RTNL() in page_pool_init() with
>> netdev_assert_locked().
>>
>> Fixes: 1d22d3060b9b ("net: drop rtnl_lock for queue_mgmt operations")
>> Signed-off-by: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
>> ---
>>  net/core/page_pool.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
>> index f5e908c9e7ad..2f469b02ea31 100644
>> --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
>> +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
>> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static int page_pool_init(struct page_pool *pool,
>>  		 * configuration doesn't change while we're initializing
>>  		 * the page_pool.
>>  		 */
>> -		ASSERT_RTNL();
>> +		netdev_assert_locked(params->netdev);
>>  		rxq = __netif_get_rx_queue(pool->slow.netdev,
>>  					   pool->slow.queue_idx);
>>  		pool->mp_priv = rxq->mp_params.mp_priv;
> 
> Not sure we can do this unconditionally. Since we still have plenty of
> drivers that might not use netdev instance lock (yet). Probably should
> be something like the following?
> 
> if (netdev_need_ops_lock(params->netdev))
> 	netdev_assert_locked(params->netdev);
> else
> 	ASSERT_RTNL();
> 
> ?
> 
> We should probably wait for https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250312223507.805719-11-kuba@kernel.org/T/#m2053ac617759a9005806e56a7df97c378b76ec77
> to land and use netdev_ops_assert_locked instead?

Ah I didn't realise that migration hasn't entirely happened. Yes, I'll
wait for netdev_ops_assert_locked() first.