netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] docs: netdev: break down the instance locking info per ops struct

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: <Z_SLOkj9EGKg_sRn@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:34:34 -0700
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
	sdf@...ichev.me, hramamurthy@...gle.com, kuniyu@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] docs: netdev: break down the instance
 locking info per ops struct

On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:01:16PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Explicitly list all the ops structs and what locking they provide.
> Use "ops locked" as a term for drivers which have ops called under
> the instance lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/networking/netdevices.rst | 54 +++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdevices.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdevices.rst
> index d6357472d3f1..0cfff56b436e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/netdevices.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/netdevices.rst
> @@ -314,13 +314,8 @@ struct napi_struct synchronization rules

[...]

> +struct ethtool_ops
> +------------------
> +
> +Similarly to ``ndos`` the instance lock is only held for select drivers.
> +For "ops locked" drivers all ethtool ops without an exception should
> +be called under the instance lock.

Extreme nit (which you can ignore): "without an exception" read
oddly to me. Did you mean "without exception" ?

At any rate:

Reviewed-by: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>