netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 14/15] devlink: move port_del() to devlink_port

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, 29 May 2023 18:41:19 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, leon@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com, moshe@...dia.com,
 jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, tariqt@...dia.com,
 idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
 ecree.xilinx@...il.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
 michal.wilczynski@...el.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 14/15] devlink: move port_del() to
 devlink_port_ops

On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:31:14 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >One could argue logically removing a port is also an operation of 
> >the parent (i.e. the devlink instance). The fact that the port gets
> >destroyed in the process is secondary. Ergo maybe we should skip 
> >this patch?  
> 
> Well, the port_del() could differ for different port flavours. The
> embedding structure of struct devlink_port is also different.
> 
> Makes sense to me to skip the flavour switch and have one port_del() for
> each port.

The asymmetry bothers me. It's hard to comment on what the best
approach is given this series shows no benefit of moving port_del().
Maybe even a loss, as mlx5 now has an ifdef in two places:

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/devlink.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/devlink.c
> index e39fd85ea2f9..63635cc44479 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/devlink.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/devlink.c
> @@ -320,7 +320,6 @@ static const struct devlink_ops mlx5_devlink_ops = {
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MLX5_SF_MANAGER
>  	.port_new = mlx5_devlink_sf_port_new,
> -	.port_del = mlx5_devlink_sf_port_del,
>  #endif
>  	.flash_update = mlx5_devlink_flash_update,
>  	.info_get = mlx5_devlink_info_get,
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/devlink_port.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/devlink_port.c
> index 76c5d6e9d47f..f370f67d9e33 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/devlink_port.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/devlink_port.c
> @@ -145,6 +145,9 @@ struct devlink_port *mlx5_esw_offloads_devlink_port(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw, u1
>  }
>  
>  static const struct devlink_port_ops mlx5_esw_dl_sf_port_ops = {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MLX5_SF_MANAGER
> +	.port_del = mlx5_devlink_sf_port_del,
> +#endif
>  	.port_fn_hw_addr_get = mlx5_devlink_port_fn_hw_addr_get,
>  	.port_fn_hw_addr_set = mlx5_devlink_port_fn_hw_addr_set,
>  	.port_fn_roce_get = mlx5_devlink_port_fn_roce_get,

Is it okay if we deferred the port_del() patch until there's some
clear benefit?