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]

Message-ID: <20201008172115.GP13580@unreal>
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 20:21:15 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
Cc:     "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        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

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:42:48PM +0000, Ertman, David M wrote:
> > -----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?

Yes, sure.

>
> -DaveE
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks