Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 19 Jan 2025 14:27:53 +0000 | | From | "Russell King (Oracle)" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: phy: Fix suspicious rcu_dereference usage |
| |
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 01:45:18PM +0100, Kory Maincent wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:07:20 -0800 > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:16:59 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote: > > > > If not protected by RTNL, what prevents two threads from calling this > > > > function at the same time, > > > > thus attempting to kfree_rcu() the same pointer twice ? > > > > > > I don't think this function can be called simultaneously from two threads, > > > if this were the case we would have already seen several issues with the > > > phydev pointer. But maybe I am wrong. > > > > > > The rcu_lock here is to prevent concurrent dev->hwprov pointer modification > > > done under rtnl_lock in net/ethtool/tsconfig.c. > > > > I could also be wrong, but I don't recall being told that suspend path > > can't race with anything else. So I think ravb should probably take > > rtnl_lock or some such when its shutting itself down.. ? > > Should we add an ASSERT_RTNL call in the phy_detach function? (Maybe > also in phy_attach to be consistent) > Even thought, I think it may raise lots of warning from other NIT drivers.
How many drivers use phy_detach() ?
The answer is... phylink, bcm genet and xgbe.
Of the phylink ones:
1. phylink_connect_phy() - for use by drivers. This had better be called _before_ the netdev is registered (without rtnl) or from .ndo_open that holds the RTNL.
2. phylink_fwnode_phy_connect() - same as above.
3. phylink_sfp_config_phy(), called from the SFP code, and its state machines. It will be holding RTNL, because it is only safe to attach and detach PHYs from a registered netdev while holding RTNL.
I haven't looked any further.
-- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
|  |