netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: neighbour: Notify changes atomically

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: <aXOTj4gp9ONKVnwa@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 15:28:15 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
	Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, Andy Roulin <aroulin@...dia.com>,
	Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@...sta.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, mlxsw@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: neighbour: Notify changes atomically

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 05:43:34PM +0100, Petr Machata wrote:

...

> v2:
> - Patch #2:
>     - Drop the __acquires / __releases annotations at neigh_notify().
>       They are not necessary with a symmetrically locking function.
>     - Retain the R-b tag for this change.
> - Patch #8:
>     - Do not skip the notification from inside the
>       atomic_read(&neigh->probes) >= neigh_max_probes(neigh)
>       conditional. Instead set a flag, and goto out after the
>       notification if the flag is set.
>     - Move the __neigh_notify() call another block up above the
>       NUD_IN_TIMER check. That belongs logically together with
>       the (NUD_INCOMPLETE | NUD_PROBE) check afterwards, no sense
>       to split the two conditionals with the notifier.

I'm ambivalent on the last point. And at any rate, I don't think my next
point warrants a re-spin.  But I do wonder if the same applies to
neigh_update_process_arp_queue and neigh_fill_info.

That notwithstanding, this series looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>