linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] devlink: Remove extra assertion from flash notification logic

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: <20211115171530.432f5753@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 17:15:30 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] devlink: Remove extra assertion from flash
 notification logic

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:27:35 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:14:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:07:47 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:  
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > 
> > > The mlxsw driver calls to various devlink flash routines even before
> > > users can get any access to the devlink instance itself. For example,
> > > mlxsw_core_fw_rev_validate() one of such functions.
> > > 
> > > It causes to the WARN_ON to trigger warning about devlink not
> > > registered, while the flow is valid.  
> > 
> > So the fix is to remove the warning and keep generating notifications
> > about objects which to the best understanding of the user space do not
> > exist?  
> 
> If we delay this mlxsw specific notification, the user will get
> DEVLINK_CMD_FLASH_UPDATE and DEVLINK_CMD_FLASH_UPDATE_END at the
> same time. I didn't like this, probably users won't like it either,
> so decided to go with less invasive solution as possible.

I'd drop these notifications, the user didn't ask to flash the device,
it's just code reuse in the driver, right?