[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250516012459.1385997-1-kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 18:24:59 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com,
andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
horms@...nel.org,
sdf@...ichev.me,
kuniyu@...zon.com,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: let lockdep compare instance locks
AFAIU always returning -1 from lockdep's compare function
basically disables checking of dependencies between given
locks. Try to be a little more precise about what guarantees
that instance locks won't deadlock.
Right now we only nest them under protection of rtnl_lock.
Mostly in unregister_netdevice_many() and dev_close_many().
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
---
include/net/netdev_lock.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/net/netdev_lock.h b/include/net/netdev_lock.h
index 2a753813f849..75a2da23100d 100644
--- a/include/net/netdev_lock.h
+++ b/include/net/netdev_lock.h
@@ -99,16 +99,29 @@ static inline void netdev_unlock_ops_compat(struct net_device *dev)
static inline int netdev_lock_cmp_fn(const struct lockdep_map *a,
const struct lockdep_map *b)
{
- /* Only lower devices currently grab the instance lock, so no
- * real ordering issues can occur. In the near future, only
- * hardware devices will grab instance lock which also does not
- * involve any ordering. Suppress lockdep ordering warnings
- * until (if) we start grabbing instance lock on pure SW
- * devices (bond/team/veth/etc).
- */
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_NET_SMALL_RTNL
+ const struct net_device *dev_a, *dev_b;
+
+ dev_a = container_of(a, struct net_device, lock.dep_map);
+ dev_b = container_of(b, struct net_device, lock.dep_map);
+#endif
+
if (a == b)
return 0;
- return -1;
+
+ /* Locking multiple devices usually happens under rtnl_lock */
+ if (lockdep_rtnl_is_held())
+ return -1;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_NET_SMALL_RTNL
+ /* It's okay to use per-netns rtnl_lock if devices share netns */
+ if (net_eq(dev_net(dev_a), dev_net(dev_b)) &&
+ lockdep_rtnl_net_is_held(dev_net(dev_a)))
+ return -1;
+#endif
+
+ /* Otherwise taking two instance locks is not allowed */
+ return 1;
}
#define netdev_lockdep_set_classes(dev) \
--
2.49.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists