linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 06/10] net: dsa: Migrate to device_find

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:46:40 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "moderated list:ARM SUB-ARCHITECTURES" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 06/10] net: dsa: Migrate to
 device_find_class()

On 01/25/2017 01:25 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:59:15AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 01/19/2017 10:12 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>
>>> Back to the actual code that triggered this discussion, the whole
>>> purpose is just a safeguard. Given a device reference, we can assume
>>> that it is indeed the backing device for a net_device, and we could do a
>>> to_net_device() right away (and crash if someone did not write correct
>>> platform_data structures), or, by walking the device tree (the device
>>> driver model one) we can make sure it does belong in the proper class
>>> and this is indeed what we think it is.
>>
>> Greg, did Russell's explanation clarify things, or do you still think
>> this is completely bogus and we need to re design the whole thing?
>>
>> Just asking so I can try to resubmit just the preparatory parts or just
>> the whole thing.
> 
> Sorry, I haven't gotten back to this, it's lower on my list.  Should try
> to get to it tomorrow...

Greg, please give some feedback here, I can only produce new patches as
fast as I am given feedback, and I would really hate to miss the 4.11
merge window because we have been sleeping on this. If there is a need
to clarify things, I will be more than happy to try to provide information.

Thank you!
-- 
Florian