[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250410191028.31a0eaf2@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:10:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<horms@...nel.org>, <hramamurthy@...gle.com>, <jdamato@...tly.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <sdf@...ichev.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/8] netdev: depend on netdev->lock for xdp
features
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 10:10:01 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> syzkaller reported splats in register_netdevice() and
> unregister_netdevice_many_notify().
>
> In register_netdevice(), some devices cannot use
> netdev_assert_locked().
>
> In unregister_netdevice_many_notify(), maybe we need to
> hold ops lock in UNREGISTER as you initially suggested.
> Now do_setlink() deadlock does not happen.
Ah... Thank you.
Do you have a reference to use as Reported-by, or its from a
non-public instance ?
I'll test this shortly:
diff --git a/net/core/netdev-genl.c b/net/core/netdev-genl.c
index b64c614a00c4..891e2f60922f 100644
--- a/net/core/netdev-genl.c
+++ b/net/core/netdev-genl.c
@@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ netdev_nl_dev_fill(struct net_device *netdev, struct sk_buff *rsp,
u64 xdp_rx_meta = 0;
void *hdr;
- netdev_assert_locked(netdev); /* note: rtnl_lock may not be held! */
+ /* note: rtnl_lock may or may not be held! */
+ netdev_assert_locked_or_invisible(netdev);
hdr = genlmsg_iput(rsp, info);
if (!hdr)
@@ -966,7 +967,9 @@ static int netdev_genl_netdevice_event(struct notifier_block *nb,
netdev_genl_dev_notify(netdev, NETDEV_CMD_DEV_ADD_NTF);
break;
case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
+ netdev_lock(netdev);
netdev_genl_dev_notify(netdev, NETDEV_CMD_DEV_DEL_NTF);
+ netdev_unlock(netdev);
break;
case NETDEV_XDP_FEAT_CHANGE:
netdev_genl_dev_notify(netdev, NETDEV_CMD_DEV_CHANGE_NTF);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists