linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] Remove use of fw_devlink_purge_absent

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:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:24:05 -0800
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Yongqin Liu <yongqin.liu@...aro.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...s.st.com>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] Remove use of fw_devlink_purge_absent_suppliers()

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:41 AM Martin Kepplinger
<martin.kepplinger@...i.sm> wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.03.2023 um 10:12 +0100 schrieb Martin Kepplinger:
> > Am Mittwoch, dem 01.03.2023 um 13:49 -0800 schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> > > Yongqin, Martin, Amelie,
> > >
> > > We recent refactor of fw_devlink that ends with commit fb42378dcc7f
> > > ("mtd: mtdpart: Don't create platform device that'll never probe"),
> > > fw_devlink is smarter and doesn't depend on compatible property.
> > > So,
> > > I
> > > don't think these calls are needed anymore. But I don't have these
> > > devices to test on and be sure and the hardware I use to test
> > > changes
> > > doesn't have this issue either.
> > >
> > > Can you please test these changes on the hardware where you hit the
> > > issue to make sure things work as expected?
> > >
> > > Yongqin, If you didn't have the context, this affected hikey960.
> > >
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > Let's wait for some tests before we land these.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Saravana
> >
> > hi Sravana,
> >
> > I picked the 12 commits leading up to commit fb42378dcc7f ("mtd:
> > mtdpart: Don't create platform device that'll never probe") (
> > https://source.puri.sm/martin.kepplinger/linux-next/-/commits/test_fw_devlink
> > ) and included the tipd patch below to test it.
> >
> > With that, I get the following errors:
> >
> > [    0.237931] imx-uart 30890000.serial: Failed to create device link
> > with regulator-gnss
> > [    0.334054] nwl-dsi 30a00000.mipi-dsi: Failed to create device
> > link
> > with regulator-lcd-1v8
> > [    0.346964] nwl-dsi 30a00000.mipi-dsi: Failed to create device
> > link
> > with backlight-dsi
> >
> > but they are independent of this final tipd patch below. I'll test a
> > real linux-next tree soon, for completeness, maybe I missed
> > something?
> >
> > Anyways, on that tree, your tipd removal patch breaks type-c still
> > for
> > me, imx8mq-librem5.dtsi
> >
> > just to give a first reply quickly... thanks,
> >
> >                              martin
> >
>
> just confirming: it's the same as above on next-20230302 + this patch (
> https://source.puri.sm/martin.kepplinger/linux-next/-/commits/test_fw_devlink_next-20230302
> ) with the errors already independent from the patch. I should have
> tested earlier patches -.-

Thanks a lot for testing Martin!

Your email is a little ambiguous to me. With the 12 refactor commits +
the 4 patches in this series, things are breaking for you. But if you
drop the 4 patches in this series, things work again. Is that right?

Let's ignore the "Failed to create device link" errors for now -- it's
not related to this usb-c-connector series. It's basically pointing
out issues that we ignored silently in the past -- it's basically
pointing out holes in fw_devlink's visibility of devices. I'll get to
them later.

-Saravana