Herbert Xu
2021-Apr-26 12:48 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH net 2/2] net: bridge: fix lockdep multicast_lock false positive splat
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 07:45:27PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:> > Ugh.. that's just very ugly. :) The setup you've described above is by all means invalid, but > possible unfortunately. The bridge already checks if it's being added as a port to another > bridge, but not through multiple levels of indirection. These locks are completely unrelated > as they're in very different contexts (different devices).Surely we should forbid this? Otherwise what's to stop someone from creating a loop? Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-Apr-26 13:15 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH net 2/2] net: bridge: fix lockdep multicast_lock false positive splat
On 26/04/2021 15:48, Herbert Xu wrote:> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 07:45:27PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >> >> Ugh.. that's just very ugly. :) The setup you've described above is by all means invalid, but >> possible unfortunately. The bridge already checks if it's being added as a port to another >> bridge, but not through multiple levels of indirection. These locks are completely unrelated >> as they're in very different contexts (different devices). > > Surely we should forbid this? Otherwise what's to stop someone > from creating a loop? > > Cheers, >Indeed that would be best, it's very easy to loop them.