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  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]
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 07:54:28 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Fabien Parent <fparent@...libre.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] net: core: provide devm_register_netdev()

On 08.05.2020 00:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 19:03:44 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> To implement Edwin's suggestion? Makes sense, but I'm no expert, let's
>>> also CC Heiner since he was asking about it last time.  
>>
>> Yes, because taking the last bit of priv_flags from net_device seems
>> to be more controversial but if net maintainers are fine with that I
>> can simply go with the current approach.
> 
> From my perspective what Edwin suggests makes sense. Apart from
> little use for the bit after probe, it also seems cleaner for devres 
> to be able to recognize managed objects based on its own state.
> 
What I was saying is that we should catch the case that a driver
author uses a device-managed register() w/o doing the same for the
alloc(). A core function should not assume that driver authors do
sane things only.
I don't have a strong preference how it should be done.
Considering what is being discussed, have a look at get_pci_dr() and
find_pci_dr(), they deal with managing which parts of the PCI
subsystem are device-managed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists