> 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. > So, I propose to resurrect my sysctl unlocking diff. To push it forward > i386 should be stable while performing dpb(1) build... Ditto.
