netdev - RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:42:48 +0000
From:   "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com" 
        <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "fred.oh@...ux.intel.com" <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 1:00 AM
> To: Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> Cc: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@...el.com>; Parav Pandit
> <parav@...dia.com>; Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-
> louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>; alsa-devel@...a-project.org;
> parav@...lanox.com; tiwai@...e.de; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com; fred.oh@...ux.intel.com; linux-
> rdma@...r.kernel.org; dledford@...hat.com; broonie@...nel.org; Jason
> Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org;
> kuba@...nel.org; Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>;
> davem@...emloft.net; Patil, Kiran <kiran.patil@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> 
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:38:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> wrote:
> > [..]
> > > All stated above is my opinion, it can be different from yours.
> >
> > Yes, but we need to converge to move this forward. Jason was involved
> > in the current organization for registration, Greg was angling for
> > this to be core functionality. I have use cases outside of RDMA and
> > netdev. Parav was ok with the current organization. The SOF folks
> > already have a proposed incorporation of it. The argument I am hearing
> > is that "this registration api seems hard for driver writers" when we
> > have several driver writers who have already taken a look and can make
> > it work. If you want to follow on with a simpler wrappers for your use
> > case, great, but I do not yet see anyone concurring with your opinion
> > that the current organization is irretrievably broken or too obscure
> > to use.
> 
> Can it be that I'm first one to use this bus for very large driver (>120K LOC)
> that has 5 different ->probe() flows?
> 
> For example, this https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> rdma/20201006172317.GN1874917@...eal/
> hints to me that this bus wasn't used with anything complex as it was initially
> intended.
> 
> And regarding registration, I said many times that init()/add() scheme is ok,
> the inability
> to call to uninit() after add() failure is not ok from my point of view.

So, to address your concern of not being able to call an uninit after a add failure
I can break the unregister flow into two steps also.  An uninit and a delete to mirror
the registration process's init and add.

Would this make the registration and un-registration flow acceptable?

-DaveE



> 
> Thanks