From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>
Cc: sdf@fomichev.me, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
horms@kernel.org, hramamurthy@google.com, jdamato@fastly.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/8] netdev: depend on netdev->lock for xdp features
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 12:19:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250411121938.0afae1b3@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z_lUZgRc9JYhjnIG@mini-arch>
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:41:58 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > Ugh, REGISTER is ops locked we'd need conditional locking here.
> >
> > Stanislav, I can make the REGISTERED notifier fully locked, right?
> > I suspect any new object we add that's protected by the instance
> > lock will want to lock the dev.
>
> Are you suggesting to do s/netdev_lock_ops/netdev_lock/ around
> call_netdevice_notifiers in register_netdevice?
Aha
> We can try, the biggest concern, as usual, are the stacking devices
> (with an extra lock), but casually grepping for NETDEV_REGISTER
> doesn't bring up anything suspicious.
>
> But if you're gonna do conditional locking for NETDEV_UNREGISTER, any
> reason not to play it safe and add conditional locking to
> NETDEV_REGISTER in netdev_genl_netdevice_event?
Just trying to think what will lead to fewer problems down the line.
Let's me think it thru. So we have this situation:
- device A - getting registered
- device L - listens / has the notifier
with upper devs our concern is usually that taking the A's lock
around the notifier forces A -> L lock ordering (between A's instance
lock and whatever lock of L, can be either instance or some other).
If A is an arbitrary device then L has to already be ready to handle
its REGISTER callback under A's instance lock, because A may be ops
locked. So as you say for generic bonding/team changing lock type
is a noop.
If A is a specific device that L is looking for - changing the lock type
around REGISTER may impact L. /me goes to look at the code
Ugh there is a bunch of drivers that wait for a specific device to
register and then take a lock. Let me play it safe then...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-11 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-08 19:59 [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: depend on instance lock for queue related netlink ops Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] net: avoid potential race between netdev_get_by_index_lock() and netns switch Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/8] net: designate XSK pool pointers in queues as "ops protected" Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] netdev: add "ops compat locking" helpers Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 4/8] netdev: don't hold rtnl_lock over nl queue info get when possible Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 5/8] xdp: double protect netdev->xdp_flags with netdev->lock Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-08 22:15 ` Harshitha Ramamurthy
2025-04-09 18:40 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 6/8] netdev: depend on netdev->lock for xdp features Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-10 17:10 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-04-11 2:10 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11 2:23 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11 17:41 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2025-04-11 19:19 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2025-04-11 2:36 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] docs: netdev: break down the instance locking info per ops struct Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-09 2:59 ` Joe Damato
2025-04-10 6:01 ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-10 16:08 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-10 22:35 ` Keller, Jacob E
2025-04-10 23:39 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11 21:26 ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-08 19:59 ` [PATCH net-next v2 8/8] netdev: depend on netdev->lock for qstats in ops locked drivers Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-10 5:23 ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-10 23:46 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-11 21:29 ` Jacob Keller
2025-04-10 0:40 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: depend on instance lock for queue related netlink ops patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250411121938.0afae1b3@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=hramamurthy@google.com \
--cc=jdamato@fastly.com \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=stfomichev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.