From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 877893DD86A for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781267923; cv=none; b=Q6jhDHEM5mgxIWjJq4IbNOdad7yf4IpdcPDi/1m4+BV2bCF7nLaEYBktgh7hDjWsdfOrNhi8GHW/EjDAPEV3t2fAxNhLk1cleHwF6JdEkTu7qWFLrzXExQOf8qzehk/39zllRWpKLSUwicDggmrMQPQ+pjkz0HAL6XrDkAIvB/c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781267923; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2VO3DTVvup53a8b6mtz14IR8zvNIYXKF8tMu17niY2c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=STy7jyi1GqHXiYxlu4SQ1TnppMY3IQQV3LFTem4/IJE5kpJBLa0pMw6yO8gpb4hMW1RVhd4kUkY9lg4l8ZAb5snbGSTHZOeBQWJDfSMxep59Vb9lx9eoxwF5VMolkadOQf9tC1pdszwlwyaIGsmxf7UFTl11fPPCwvXmkXEHQ2A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RNxswPx3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="RNxswPx3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0D471F000E9; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:38:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781267922; bh=/iniJO3J7ejHxZqxaL7RUEVPeDd2EIiz11xjqJTsMD8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=RNxswPx3Cuh+1yCG+L0pOhCY9Cp5DENeb8BZJTTq71KIOZLJQkCPLeEMiSjncGoVQ JXv86DWfTGzgQrEQYMeJECCYHVmM5gvMWbrRw5EkozCu/hQyzfWBBBOPmd14Ocmk0/ ZuzyYa7xyQQAZrN7pFqLww0RHz4paPNRjpXuf1t6MecExJ3l/yKfDHqw+JN3+ZIGlT WVIbIR2ZSyaCFp+1+qrkl9gHhnx67cTbnDzkx3EHXEQPrUoOplCB1ZEpdOBFh1CdZL 0vFTMji6x33pX7dwIYJh9pKztLzfFOkXTB9+FVarnMgB+V8Li/JUXxAshVGNKlYnni ujNZDs2SeSVcg== From: Simon Horman To: fmancera@suse.de Cc: Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, dsahern@kernel.org, idosch@nvidia.com, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 net-next v6] ipv4: handle devconf post-set actions on netlink updates Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:38:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20260612123820.673243-1-horms@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.54.0 In-Reply-To: <20260609204520.4670-2-fmancera@suse.de> References: <20260609204520.4670-2-fmancera@suse.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. Full review at: https://sashiko.dev --- ipv4: handle devconf post-set actions on netlink updates This commit ensures that IPv4 device configuration parameters updated via netlink trigger the same post-modification actions as sysctl updates. It addresses the inconsistency by calling devinet_conf_post_set() inside inet_set_link_af() and deferring cache flushing. > diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c > index 8300516fb38f4..a35b72662e431 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c > @@ -2161,6 +2161,20 @@ static bool devinet_conf_post_set(struct net *net, struct ipv4_devconf *cnf, [ ... ] > + case IPV4_DEVCONF_FORWARDING: > + if (new == 1) { > + /* it is safe to use container_of() because forwarding case > + * is only used by the netlink path > + */ > + struct in_device *idev = container_of(cnf, struct in_device, cnf); > + > + netif_disable_lro(idev->dev); [Severity: High] Does calling netif_disable_lro() directly here without acquiring the netdev_lock_ops mutex cause lockdep assertion failures? Since inet_set_link_af() runs only under rtnl_lock() and does not acquire the device ops lock, this direct invocation appears to bypass the locking requirements for netif_disable_lro(), which modifies dev->wanted_features and invokes netdev_update_features(dev). On drivers that opt-in to netdev_lock_ops, does this create a concurrent data race on the device features mask? Should this use dev_disable_lro() instead, which correctly acquires and releases netdev_lock_ops(dev) around the netif_disable_lro() call? > + } > + > + inet_netconf_notify_devconf(net, RTM_NEWNETCONF, > + NETCONFA_FORWARDING, > + ifindex, cnf); > + return true;