linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: ethtool: Remove PHYLIB direct dependency

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]

Message-ID: <20200706115427.36e4cff2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:54:27 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: ethtool: Remove PHYLIB direct
 dependency

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:45:38 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 7/6/2020 11:40 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sun,  5 Jul 2020 21:27:58 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:  
> >> +	ops = ethtool_phy_ops;
> >> +	if (!ops || !ops->start_cable_test) {  
> > 
> > nit: don't think member-by-member checking is necessary. We don't
> > expect there to be any alternative versions of the ops, right?  
> 
> There could be, a network device driver not using PHYLIB could register
> its own operations and only implement a subset of these operations.

I'd strongly prefer drivers did not insert themselves into
subsys-to-subsys glue :S

> > We could even risk a direct call:
> > 
> > #if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PHYLIB)
> > static inline int do_x()
> > {
> > 	return __do_x();
> > }
> > #else
> > static inline int do_x()
> > {
> > 	if (!ops)
> > 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > 	return ops->do_x();
> > }
> > #endif
> > 
> > But that's perhaps doing too much...  
> 
> Fine either way with me, let us see what Michal and Andrew think about that.

Ack, let's hear it :)