netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 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: <20250410090802.37207b61@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:08:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
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>,
 <jdamato@...tly.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] docs: netdev: break down the instance
 locking info per ops struct

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 23:01:18 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> > +All queue management callbacks are invoked while holding the netdev instance
> > +lock. ``rtnl_lock`` may or may not be held.
> > +
> > +Note that supporting struct netdev_queue_mgmt_ops automatically enables
> > +"ops locking".
> > +  
> 
> Does this mean we don't allow drivers which support
> netdev_queue_mgmt_ops but don't set request_ops_lock? Or does it mean
> that supporting netdev_queue_mgmt_ops and/or netdev shapers
> automatically implies request_ops_lock? Or is there some other
> behavioral difference?
> 
> From the wording this sounds like its enforced via code, and it seems
> reasonable to me that we wouldn't allow these without setting
> request_ops_lock to true...

"request" is for drivers to optionally request.
If the driver supports queue or shaper APIs it doesn't have a say.