[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <154e30fa-9465-4e4e-a1f4-410ef73c04cf@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 08:35:37 +0300
From: Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>
To: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>,
Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dev_ioctl: take ops lock in hwtstamp lower paths
On 05/09/2025 0:52, Kory Maincent wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 21:28:06 +0300
> Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com> wrote:
>
>> ndo hwtstamp callbacks are expected to run under the per-device ops
>> lock. Make the lower get/set paths consistent with the rest of ndo
>> invocations.
>>
>> Kernel log:
>> WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 51364 at ./include/net/netdev_lock.h:70
>> __netdev_update_features+0x4bd/0xe60 ...
>> RIP: 0010:__netdev_update_features+0x4bd/0xe60
>> ...
>> Call Trace:
>> <TASK>
>> netdev_update_features+0x1f/0x60
>> mlx5_hwtstamp_set+0x181/0x290 [mlx5_core]
>> mlx5e_hwtstamp_set+0x19/0x30 [mlx5_core]
> Where does these two functions come from? They are not mainline.
> Else LGTM.
You are right, I hit this when I was working on another patch to
convert the legacy ndo. I thought it would be nice to have the
kernel log in the commit message.
Thanks,
Carolina
Powered by blists - more mailing lists