netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx4: make sure to always set the port type

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: <20200907093614.12231d6b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:36:14 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, tariqt@...lanox.com,
        yishaih@...lanox.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mlx4: make sure to always set the port type

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:48:30 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>> And can we call to devlink_port_type_*_set() without IS_ENABLED() check?  
>>>
>>> It'll generate two netlink notifications - not the end of the world but
>>> also doesn't feel super clean.  
> 
> I would say that such a situation is corner case during the driver init and
> not an end of the world to see double netlink message.

Could you spell out your reasoning here? Are you concerned about
out-of-tree drivers?

I don't see how adding IS_ENABLED() to the condition outweighs 
the benefit of not having duplicated netlink notifications.