netdev - Re: [PATCH (EXPERIMENTAL)] team: replace term lock with rtnl lock

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: <20250521105900.3111b6c1@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 10:59:00 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Hillf Danton
 <hdanton@...a.com>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH (EXPERIMENTAL)] team: replace term lock with rtnl lock

On Wed, 21 May 2025 22:54:51 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2025/05/18 0:09, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > I think this was a trylock because there are places we try to cancel
> > this work while already holding the lock.  
> 
> I checked rtnl_unlock(), and it seems to me that rtnl_unlock() calls mutex_unlock() before
> doing operations that might sleep. Then, rtnl_unlock() itself won't increase possibility of
> rtnl_trylock() failure...

I don't think you understood my comment :(