netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: let lockdep compare instance locks

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: <20250516082243.1befa6f4@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 08:22:43 -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>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 <sdf@...ichev.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: let lockdep compare instance locks

On Thu, 15 May 2025 19:59:41 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > Is the thinking that once the big rtnl lock disappears in cleanup_net
> > the devices are safe to destroy without any locking because there can't
> > be any live users trying to access them?  
> 
> I hope yes, but removing VF via sysfs and removing netns might
> race and need some locking ?

I think we should take the small lock around default_device_exit_net()
and then we'd be safe? Either a given VF gets moved to init_net first
or the sysfs gets to it and unregisters it safely in the old netns.