netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/5] net: dsa: bcm

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: <87vb1kke5u.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:11:09 -0400
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emlof.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/5] net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Register our slave MDIO bus

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:

>> > With the legacy interface it is tricky. When would you call such a
>> > remove/tairdown function when using the old binding?
>> 
>> That'd go in dsa_switch_destroy I guess, but it just covers the case
>> where the whole DSA code is unloaded...
>
> I don't think that helps you. It should not be possible to unload the
> DSA core while there is an active driver. The drivers needs to unload
> first....

Well, dsa_switch_destroy() is where ds->slave_mii_bus gets unregistered
(if registered by the framework), so it seems fair to do something like:

    if (ds->drv->shutdown)
        ds->drv->shutdown(ds);

But I'm still not sure if it is worth it to add a new legacy specific
function to DSA drivers, unless there is a use case for such optional
teardown callback for the new bindings too.

Thanks,

        Vivien