On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 04:06:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:18:31 +0300 > > > From: Vitaliy Makkoveev <m...@openbsd.org> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > > > > > On the other side, would that make sense to have a NET_LOCK()-free > > > > sysctl path? > > > > > > > > > > To me it's better to remove uvm_vslock() from network related sysctl > > > paths. uvm_vslock() used to avoid context switch in the uiomove() call > > > to not break kernel lock protected data. It is not required for netlock > > > protected network stuff. > > > > I don't think uvm_vslock() plays a role in the lock order reversal > > being discussed here. > > > > copyin() and copyout() don't sleep while called from sysctl() paths. At > least it is supposed.
copyout() does not sleep. The uvm_vslock() is in if(SCARG(uap, old)). So copyin() may sleep. See comment in my sysctl int atomic diff. bluhm
