[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCYK_rVZ7Tl7uIbc@mini-arch>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 08:40:46 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
sdf@...ichev.me, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+53485086a41dbb43270a@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] team: grab team lock during team_change_rx_flags
On 05/15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2025 15:03:19 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/net/team/team_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/team/team_core.c
> > @@ -1778,8 +1778,8 @@ static void team_change_rx_flags(struct net_device *dev, int change)
> > struct team_port *port;
> > int inc;
> >
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(port, &team->port_list, list) {
> > + mutex_lock(&team->lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(port, &team->port_list, list) {
>
> I'm not sure if change_rx_flags is allowed to sleep.
> Could you try to test it on a bond with a child without IFF_UNICAST_FLT,
> add an extra unicast address to the bond and remove it?
> That should flip promisc on and off IIUC.
I see, looks like you're concerned about addr_list_lock spin lock in
dev_set_rx_mode? (or other callers of __dev_set_rx_mode) Let me try
to reproduce with your example, but seems like it's an issue, yes
and we have a lot of ndo_change_rx_flags callbacks that are sleepable :-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists