Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 23:07:21 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sassmann@redhat.com" <sassmann@redhat.com>,
        "Piotrowski, Patryk" <patryk.piotrowski@intel.com>,
        SlawomirX Laba <slawomirx.laba@intel.com>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] iavf: Do not restart Tx queues after reset task
 failure
Message-ID: <Y21oCUjEHEMr9HGb@unreal>
References: <20221108102502.2147389-1-ivecera@redhat.com>
 <Y2vvbwkvAIOdtZaA@unreal>
 <CO1PR11MB508996B0D00B5FE6187AF085D63E9@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20221110155147.1a2c57f6@p1.luc.cera.cz>
 <Y20vtqd6raqg8iwy@unreal>
 <20221110122418.32414666@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221110122418.32414666@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:24:18PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:07:02 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > Yes I think you're right. A ton of people check it without the
> > > > lock but I think thats not strictly safe. Is dev_close safe to
> > > > call when netif_running is false? Why not just remove the check
> > > > and always call dev_close then.
> > > 
> > > Check for a bit value (like netif_runnning()) is much cheaper than
> > > unconditionally taking global lock like RTNL.  
> > 
> > This cheap operation is racy and performed in non-performance
> > critical path.
> 
> To be clear - the rtnl_lock around the entire if is still racy 
> in the grand scheme of things, no? What's stopping someone from
> bringing the device right back up after you drop the lock?

I want to believe what there is some sort of state machine that won't
allow simple toggling of dev_close/dev_open. If it doesn't, rtnl_lock
users should audit their code for possible toggling right after that
lock is dropped.

Anyway, this discussion reminds me our devl_lock debate where we had
completely opposite views if rtnl_lock model is the right one.
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20211101073259.33406da3@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN/

Let's not start argue again, we had enough back then. :)

Thanks