netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 5/9] net: phylink: Add phylink_create

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: <716d26d0-e997-177f-ca35-d39cbd1f67ce@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 07:32:32 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        "olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 5/9] net: phylink: Add phylink_create_raw



On 5/23/2019 5:10 AM, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> 
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 5/9] net: phylink: Add phylink_create_raw
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/2019 7:25 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2019 6:20 PM, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
>>>> This adds a new entry point to PHYLINK that does not require a
>>>> net_device structure.
>>>>
>>>> The main intended use are DSA ports that do not have net devices
>>>> registered for them (mainly because doing so would be redundant - see
>>>> Documentation/networking/dsa/dsa.rst for details). So far DSA has
>>>> been using PHYLIB fixed PHYs for these ports, driven manually with
>>>> genphy instead of starting a full PHY state machine, but this does
>>>> not scale well when there are actual PHYs that need a driver on those
>>>> ports, or when a fixed-link is requested in DT that has a speed
>>>> unsupported by the fixed PHY C22 emulation (such as SGMII-2500).
>>>>
>>>> The proposed solution comes in the form of a notifier chain owned by
>>>> the PHYLINK instance, and the passing of phylink_notifier_info
>>>> structures back to the driver through a blocking notifier call.
>>>>
>>>> The event API exposed by the new notifier mechanism is a 1:1 mapping
>>>> to the existing PHYLINK mac_ops, plus the PHYLINK fixed-link callback.
>>>>
>>>> Both the standard phylink_create() function, as well as its raw
>>>> variant, call the same underlying function which initializes either
>>>> the netdev field or the notifier block of the PHYLINK instance.
>>>>
>>>> All PHYLINK driver callbacks have been extended to call the notifier
>>>> chain in case the instance is a raw one.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> +	struct phylink_notifier_info info = {
>>>> +		.link_an_mode = pl->link_an_mode,
>>>> +		/* Discard const pointer */
>>>> +		.state = (struct phylink_link_state *)state,
>>>> +	};
>>>> +
>>>>  	netdev_dbg(pl->netdev,
>>>>  		   "%s: mode=%s/%s/%s/%s adv=%*pb pause=%02x link=%u
>> an=%u\n",
>>>>  		   __func__, phylink_an_mode_str(pl->link_an_mode),
>>>> @@ -299,7 +317,12 @@ static void phylink_mac_config(struct phylink *pl,
>>>>  		   __ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_MASK_NBITS, state->advertising,
>>>>  		   state->pause, state->link, state->an_enabled);
>>>
>>> Don't you need to guard that netdev_dbg() with an if (pl->ops) to
>>> avoid de-referencing a NULL net_device?
>>>
> 
> 
> The netdev_* print will not dereference a NULL net_device since it has explicit checks agains this.
> Instead it will just print (net/core/dev.c, __netdev_printk):
> 
> 	printk("%s(NULL net_device): %pV", level, vaf);
> 
> 
>>> Another possibility could be to change the signature of the
>>> phylink_mac_ops to take an opaque pointer and in the case where we
>>> called phylink_create() and passed down a net_device pointer, we
>>> somehow remember that for doing any operation that requires a
>>> net_device (printing, setting carrier). We lose strict typing in doing
>>> that, but we'd have fewer places to patch for a blocking notifier call.
>>>
>>
>> Or even make those functions part of phylink_mac_ops such that the caller
>> could pass an .carrier_ok callback which is netif_carrier_ok() for a net_device,
>> else it's NULL, same with printing functions if desired...
>> --
>> Florian
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understood this correctly. I presume that any API that we add should not break any current PHYLINK users.
> 
> You suggest to change the prototype of the phylink_mac_ops from
> 
> 	void (*validate)(struct net_device *ndev, unsigned long *supported,
> 			 struct phylink_link_state *state);
> 
> to something that takes a void pointer:
> 
> 	void (*validate)(void *dev, unsigned long *supported,
> 			 struct phylink_link_state *state);

That is what I am suggesting, but I am also suggesting passing all
netdev specific calls that must be made as callbacks as well, so
something like:

	bool (*carrier_ok)(const void *dev)
	void (*carrier_set)(const void *dev, bool on)
	void (*print)(const void *dev, const char *fmt)

as new members of phylink_mac_ops.

> 
> This would imply that the any function in PHYLINK would have to somehow differentiate if the dev provided is indeed a net_device or another structure in order to make the decision if netif_carrier_off should be called or not (this is so we do not break any drivers using PHYLINK). I cannot see how this judgement can be made.

You don't have to make the judgement you can just do:

if (pl->ops->carrier_set)
	pl->ops->carrier_set(dev,

where dev was this opaque pointer passed to phylink_create() the first
time it was created. Like I wrote, we lose strong typing doing that, but
we don't have to update all code paths for if (pl->ops) else notifier.
-- 
Florian