linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: avoid devm_alloc

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: <500r48s9-6s4o-ppnr-4p2q-05731rnn9qs6@syhkavp.arg>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 16:26:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
    Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
    Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
    Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>, 
    Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: avoid
 devm_alloc_etherdev, fix module removal

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, Roger Quadros wrote:

> > If you know of a way to do this differently I'm all ears.
> 
> I sent another approach already. please check.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/67c9ede4-9751-4255-b752-27dd60495ff3@kernel.org/

Seems to work correctly.

Still... given this paragraph found in Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst:

|Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all "auto-cleanup" APIs,
|including even ``devm_`` helpers, historically. They are not the preferred
|style of implementation, merely an acceptable one.

and given my solution is way simpler, I tend to also prefer it over yours.

But I'm not the maintainer nor even a significant contributor here so as 
long as the issue is fixed I won't mind.

> > About the many error cases needing the freeing of net devices, as far as 
> > I know they're all covered with this patch.
> 
> No they are not.

As I said yesterday, I do still stand by my affirmation that they are.
Please look at the entire return path and you'll see that everything is 
covered.

Nicolas