netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 10/25] RDMA/irdma: Add driver framework definitions

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: <20200220230614.GF31668@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:06:14 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Ismail, Mustafa" <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 10/25] RDMA/irdma: Add driver framework definitions

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:24:05PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 2:43 PM
> > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
> > Cc: Ismail, Mustafa <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org; nhorman@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com;
> > jgg@...pe.ca
> > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v4 10/25] RDMA/irdma: Add driver framework
> > definitions
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> > > > +static int irdma_devlink_reload_up(struct devlink *devlink,
> > > > +				   struct netlink_ext_ack *extack) {
> > > > +	struct irdma_dl_priv *priv = devlink_priv(devlink);
> > > > +	union devlink_param_value saved_value;
> > > > +	const struct virtbus_dev_id *id = priv->vdev->matched_element;
> > >
> > > Like irdma_probe(), struct iidc_virtbus_object *vo is accesible for the given
> > priv.
> > > Please use struct iidc_virtbus_object for any sharing between two drivers.
> > > matched_element modification inside the virtbus match() function and
> > > accessing pointer to some driver data between two driver through this
> > > matched_element is not appropriate.
> > 
> > We can possibly avoid matched_element and driver data look up here.
> > But fundamentally, at probe time (see irdma_gen_probe) the irdma driver
> > needs to know which generation type of vdev we bound to. i.e. i40e or ice ?
> > since we support both.
> > And based on it, extract the driver specific virtbus device object, i.e
> > i40e_virtbus_device vs iidc_virtbus_object and init that device.
> > 
> > Accessing driver_data off the vdev matched entry in irdma_virtbus_id_table
> > is how we know this generation info and make the decision.
> > 
> If there is single irdma driver for two different virtbus device
> types, it is better to have two instances of
> virtbus_register_driver() with different matching string/id.

Yes, I think this also makes sense

The probe mechanism should include the entry pointer like PCI does for
probe so that the driver knows what to do.

Jason