On 7/8/26 12:35 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:28:20PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 08:39:25PM +0800, Runyu Xiao wrote:
>>>> The GTP PDP lookup helpers are shared by RCU-protected data and report
>>>> paths and RTNL-protected control paths such as gtp_genl_new_pdp(). The
>>>> helpers walk RCU hlists, but they do not currently pass the RTNL
>>>> condition for the control-path lookups.
>>>>
>>>> Pass lockdep_rtnl_is_held() to the PDP hlist iterators. Existing
>>>> RCU-reader callers remain valid because the RCU-list macros also accept
>>>> an active RCU read-side section; the added condition only documents the
>>>> non-RCU protection already used by RTNL control paths.
>>>>
>>>> This was found by our static analysis tool and then manually reviewed
>>>> against the current tree. The dynamic triage evidence is a
>>>> target-matched CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST warning; the change is limited
>>>> to documenting the existing protection contract.
>>>>
>>>> This is a lockdep annotation cleanup. It does not change PDP lifetime or
>>>> hash updates.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Runyu Xiao <runyu.xiao@seu.edu.cn>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
>>>
>>> There is an AI-generated review of this patch available on sashko.dev.
>>> While I don't believe that the issues raised there should impede progress
>>> of this patch you may want to look into them as possible follow-up.
>>
>> This patch refers to the rtnl_lock, but it is the genetlink mutex that
>> protects updates on the PDP context list.
>>
>> Then, from packet path, rcu lookups are performed.
>>
>> I think this patch is not correct.
> 
> Hi Pablo,
> 
> Of course you are correct.
> Sorry for not realising this earlier.

Human slop here made me wrongly apply this patch. Could either of you
please share a formal revert?

Thanks!

Paolo