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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aCd68HA340VLNbHt@mini-arch>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 10:50:40 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, 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 05/16, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2025 08:22:43 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Thinking about it some more, we'll have to revisit this problem before
> removing the big lock, anyway. I'm leaning towards doing this for now:

+1