On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:48:03 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > I'm still learning the af_xdp. Sure, I'm interested in it, just a bit
> > > worried if I'm capable of completing it. I will try then.
> >
> > SG, thanks! If you need more details lmk, but basically we need to reorder
> > netdev_lock_ops() and mutex_lock(lock: &xs->mutex)+XSK_READY check.
> > And similarly for cleanup (out_unlock/out_release) path.
>
> Jakub just told me that I'm wrong and it looks similar to commit
> f0433eea4688 ("net: don't mix device locking in dev_close_many()
> calls"). So this is not as easy as flipping the lock ordering :-(
I don't think registering a netdev from NETDEV_UP even of another
netdev is going to play way with instance locks and lockdep.
This is likely a false positive but if syzbot keeps complaining
we could:
diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/lapbether.c b/drivers/net/wan/lapbether.c
index 995a7207bdf8..f357a7ac70ac 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wan/lapbether.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wan/lapbether.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static struct lapbethdev *lapbeth_get_x25_dev(struct net_device *dev)
static __inline__ int dev_is_ethdev(struct net_device *dev)
{
- return dev->type == ARPHRD_ETHER && strncmp(dev->name, "dummy", 5);
+ return dev->type == ARPHRD_ETHER && !netdev_need_ops_lock(dev);
}
IDK what the dummy hack is there for, it's been like that since
git begun..
