On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:09:32 -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 2/22/19 11:54 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > When calling into devlink compat code make sure we have a reference > > on the netdevice on which the operation was invoked. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> > > --- > > net/core/ethtool.c | 11 ++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c > > index 1320e8dce559..6832476dfcaf 100644 > > --- a/net/core/ethtool.c > > +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c > > @@ -805,11 +805,14 @@ static noinline_for_stack int > > ethtool_get_drvinfo(struct net_device *dev, > > if (ops->get_eeprom_len) > > info.eedump_len = ops->get_eeprom_len(dev); > > > > - rtnl_unlock(); > > - if (!info.fw_version[0]) > > + if (!info.fw_version[0]) { > > + dev_hold(dev); > > + rtnl_unlock(); > > devlink_compat_running_version(dev, info.fw_version, > > sizeof(info.fw_version)); > > - rtnl_lock(); > > + rtnl_lock(); > > + dev_put(dev); > > + } > > Would it make sense to make the locking and reference holding implicit > within the compat versions of devlink_* because they use a net_device -> > devlink object manipulation as opposed to doing in the caller. We are > more or less guaranteed that the compatibility layer is used from within > ethtool.
I guess we can, in general it feels wrong to call some devlink_ function with rtnl_lock held, but I guess devlink_compat_ can be special in this regard. v3 coming up.
