netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module

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: <c252fc18-51fb-e92c-c37b-55e91b42fdbc@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:21:45 -0700
From:   "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     stephen@...workplumber.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module

On 4/22/2018 10:06 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:42:02PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER)
>> +
>> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
>> +		    struct failover **pfailover);
> Should we rename all these structs net_failover?
> It's possible to extend the concept to storage I think.

We could, the only downside is that the names become longer. i think we need
to change the filenames and the function names also to be consistent.


>
>> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover);
>> +
>> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
>> +		      struct failover **pfailover);
>> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover);
>> +
>> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev);
>> +
>> +#else
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
>> +		    struct failover **pfailover);
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
> Does this make callers do something sane?
> Shouldn't these return an error?

Yes. i think i should return -EOPNOTSUPP here, so that we fail
when CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER is not enabled and the virtio-net driver is trying
to create a failover device.


>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
>> +		      struct pfailover **pfailover);
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> struct pfailover seems like a typo.

yes. will also change the return to -EOPNOTSUPP

>
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev)
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> Does anyone test return value of unregister?
> should this be void?

yes. can be changed to void.


>
>> +
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#endif /* _NET_FAILOVER_H */