linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Register and unregister devlink traps on probe/remove device

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: <20211025112453.089519e4@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:24:53 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+93d5accfaefceedf43c1@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Register and unregister devlink
 traps on probe/remove device

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:08:00 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> No, it's not correct. After your patch, trap properties like action are
> not set back to the default. Regardless of what you think is the "right
> design", you cannot introduce such regressions.
> 
> Calling devlink_*_unregister() in reload_down() and devlink_*_register()
> in reload_up() is not new. It is done for multiple objects (e.g., ports,
> regions, shared buffer, etc). After your patch, netdevsim is still doing
> it.

If we want to push forward in the direction that Leon advocates we'd
have to unregister the devlink instance before reload_down(), right?

Otherwise it seems fundamentally incompatible with the idea of reload
for reconfig. And we'd be trading one partially correct model for
another partially correct model :/

> Again, please revert the two commits I mentioned. If you think they are
> necessary, you can re-submit them in the future, after proper review and
> testing of the affected code paths.