Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v5 3/5] ice: migrate to netdev ops lock

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 09:57:54 +0100

On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 03:57:25PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri,  8 May 2026 14:28:29 +0100
> 
> > From: 'Simon Horman' <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> > email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
> > Full review at: https://sashiko.dev
> > ---
> >     ice: migrate to netdev ops lock
> > 
> > This commit migrates queue management operations to use netdev locking.
> > It updates several NAPI and VSI configuration functions to use their
> > _locked variants to avoid deadlocks, taking the lock manually where needed.
> > 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_dcb_lib.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_dcb_lib.c
> >> index 16aa255351523..7d89c0acc5d8d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_dcb_lib.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_dcb_lib.c
> > [ ... ]
> >> @@ -1107,7 +1106,7 @@ ice_dcb_process_lldp_set_mib_change(struct ice_pf *pf,
> >>  
> >>  	rtnl_lock();
> >>  	/* disable VSIs affected by DCB changes */
> >> -	ice_dcb_ena_dis_vsi(pf, false, true);
> >> +	ice_dcb_ena_dis_vsi(pf, false);
> >>  
> >>  	ret = ice_query_port_ets(pi, &buf, sizeof(buf), NULL);
> >>  	if (ret) {
> >> @@ -1119,7 +1118,7 @@ ice_dcb_process_lldp_set_mib_change(struct ice_pf *pf,
> >>  	ice_pf_dcb_recfg(pf, false);
> >>  
> >>  	/* enable previously downed VSIs */
> >> -	ice_dcb_ena_dis_vsi(pf, true, true);
> >> +	ice_dcb_ena_dis_vsi(pf, true);
> >>  unlock_rtnl:
> >>  	rtnl_unlock();
> >>  out:
> > 
> > This wasn't introduced by this patch, but does this error path leave VSIs
> > permanently disabled?
> > 
> > If ice_query_port_ets() fails, the code jumps to unlock_rtnl, bypassing the
> > call to ice_dcb_ena_dis_vsi(pf, true). This seems to leave the affected VSIs
> > (including the main PF interface) in a disabled state (ICE_VSI_DOWN) with
> > ICE_VSI_NEEDS_RESTART set, which could result in a denial of service.
> > 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_eswitch.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_eswitch.c
> >> index 2e4f0969035f7..af0cc77fbf718 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_eswitch.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_eswitch.c
> >> @@ -23,10 +23,16 @@ static int ice_eswitch_setup_env(struct ice_pf *pf)
> >>  	struct net_device *netdev = uplink_vsi->netdev;
> >>  	bool if_running = netif_running(netdev);
> >>  	struct ice_vsi_vlan_ops *vlan_ops;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	if (if_running && !test_and_set_bit(ICE_VSI_DOWN, uplink_vsi->state)) {
> >> +		netdev_lock(netdev);
> >> +		ret = ice_down(uplink_vsi);
> >> +		netdev_unlock(netdev);
> >>  
> >> -	if (if_running && !test_and_set_bit(ICE_VSI_DOWN, uplink_vsi->state))
> >> -		if (ice_down(uplink_vsi))
> >> +		if (ret)
> >>  			return -ENODEV;
> >> +	}
> > 
> > Simon says: It seems that the topic of locks in this patch has come up
> >             again ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > 
> > Does manipulating the state bit outside of netdev_lock create a race
> > condition with interface teardown?
> > 
> > If the interface is concurrently brought down, ndo_stop (which holds
> > netdev_lock) would call ice_vsi_close(). Because ICE_VSI_DOWN is already
> > set by the test_and_set_bit() call above, ice_vsi_close() would skip calling
> > ice_down() and immediately proceed to free the Tx/Rx rings.
> > 
> > This would leave the hardware queues active and performing DMA operations into
> > freed memory, potentially causing a use-after-free.
> 
> I ran Sashiko internally a couple times and it hasn't found these =\
> 
> Anyway, now that I anyway need to adjust the series after
> .ndo_set_rx_mode_asyn() landed, I'll take a look at this, too.
> 
> (I hate this series already. I feel like if Sashiko was alive when other
>  vendors were switching to the netdev lock, they'd have the same drama)

Life is certainly different with Sashiko.
No question about it.

> 
> (I was planning to add devmem/io_uring support to idpf after this lands,
>  but given that idpf is way more confusing and inconsistent in locking,
>  I'm not sure I'll have enough patience :D)
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek