From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dqh4dH8aZ6HN+B6a/NbTwQiRYC2u5Akv4+7vt6N7BqI=; b=XY9Yv9AWPcZwWKle2oLxy6MXxZYJ/wI3gWfHvn1lwE0JJXaahPaKvpQZfVqimJVczU 6cKT0NyHZMxVxRYb1j2gl3iw6Tk0aJJSghG2us6p4q5uzGj/Bi7mgOvUX+hqf3MhzQg+ gTBcuWVt1SUt7oWg50ZtZ1OR0L2iUpJEBqTZ12/nkPhOna7owJ3beyuLuIs3y6kI1/0z +V/a4ZdA7XHpDRqjZ4u5iYt6ECEjJ3wudJb3xa4WXtVz2JMzaaRgGQ4XBw4aHI86j7pH D+LyTlb4q5HRHj7KWC+tPmNrO2NaYpKzJ1YP7lWKjUMaesuaq1PzEn1tPnB5qQMKro/f FqHA== References: <20210425155742.30057-1-ap420073@gmail.com> <20210425155742.30057-3-ap420073@gmail.com> <20210426124806.4zqhtn4wewair4ua@gondor.apana.org.au> <1e8cda49-4bc3-6f0b-29f3-97848aab18f0@nvidia.com> From: Taehee Yoo Message-ID: <68b18d15-d472-3305-4f91-5e61f8b60488@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:17:52 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1e8cda49-4bc3-6f0b-29f3-97848aab18f0@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net 2/2] net: bridge: fix lockdep multicast_lock false positive splat List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nikolay Aleksandrov , Herbert Xu Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, cong.wang@bytedance.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, j.vosburgh@gmail.com, dsahern@kernel.org, roopa@nvidia.com, ast@kernel.org, bjorn@kernel.org, vfalico@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, weiwan@google.com, andriin@fb.com, davem@davemloft.net On 4/26/21 10:15 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > On 26/04/2021 15:48, Herbert Xu wrote: Hi Nikolay and Herbert, Thank you for the reviews! >> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 07:45:27PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >>> >>> Ugh.. that's just very ugly. :) The setup you've described above is by all means invalid, but >>> possible unfortunately. The bridge already checks if it's being added as a port to another >>> bridge, but not through multiple levels of indirection. These locks are completely unrelated >>> as they're in very different contexts (different devices). >> >> Surely we should forbid this? Otherwise what's to stop someone >> from creating a loop? >> >> Cheers, >> > > Indeed that would be best, it's very easy to loop them. > We can make very various interface graphs with master/slave interface types. So, if we need something to forbid it, I think it should be generic code, not only for the bridge module.