Re: [PATCH net v2] net: Drop the lock in skb_may_tx_timestamp()

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:49:24 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:38:58 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:  
> > > skb_may_tx_timestamp() may acquire sock::sk_callback_lock. The lock must
> > > not be taken in IRQ context, only softirq is okay. A few drivers receive
> > > the timestamp via a dedicated interrupt and complete the TX timestamp
> > > from that handler. This will lead to a deadlock if the lock is already
> > > write-locked on the same CPU.  
> > 
> > Fine by me, the fix is fairly simple. But FWIW I can't stop myself from
> > restating that networking core is not supposed to be called by drivers
> > in hard IRQ context in general. Especially when it comes to anything
> > that may involve user sockets. So my intuition is that fixing the driver
> > to use a tasklet^w work_bh would make the expectations clearer.
> > 
> > Willem, you don't find that argument convincing?  
> 
> This narrow case seems fine to me too.
> 
> But I can understand if that would be a global rule. As it simplifies
> reasoning about correctness of core code quite a bit. In which case
> that would trump this. No preference from me. Clearly other drivers
> are quite capable of making this work without requiring updates from
> hard IRQ.

Well put. I guess we're in the same boat then. No strong preference
here either, but I like the clearly drawn expectations to simplify
reasoning.

> > BTW IIUC the driver in question was igc, and it did not exist for
> > another 3 years after the commit under Fixes, which is another bad
> > smell here.  
> 
> I was wondering about that too. But Sebastian shared quite a few more
> drivers: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260217132838.kgRAQ87W@linutronix.de/
> I did not bother to check whether all were newer than the introduction
> of the blamed commit.

IIRC CAN did not have timestamping until relatively recently so none 
of those count. hclge is even newer than igc.