netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4 07/11] docs: net: document netdev notifier expectations

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: <20250331135825.32acfce7@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:58:25 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 07/11] docs: net: document netdev notifier
 expectations

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:05:59 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> +The following notifiers are running without the lock (so the ops-locked
> +devices need to manually grab the lock if needed):

Not sure about the text in the parenthesis, "the devices" don't "grab
the lock". I mean - drivers don't generally register for notifications
about their own devices. It's whoever registered the notifier that needs
to make sure they take appropriate locks. I think we're fine without
that sentence.

> +* ``NETDEV_UNREGISTER``
> +
> +There are no clear expectations for the remaining notifiers. Notifiers not on
> +the list may run with or without the instance lock, potentially even invoking
> +the same notifier type with and without the lock from different code paths.
> +The goal is to eventually ensure that all (or most, with a few documented
> +exceptions) notifiers run under the instance lock.

Should we add a sentence here along the lines of "Please extend this
documentation whenever you make explicit assumption about lock being
held from a notifier." or is that obvious?