netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] vsock/virtio: set vsock frontend ready in virtio_vsock

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: <b48bd02d-9514-ec0c-3779-fd5ddc5c2d3d@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 19:05:39 +0800
From:   Xianting Tian <xianting.tian@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc:     sgarzare@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        jasowang@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vsock/virtio: set vsock frontend ready in
 virtio_vsock_probe()


在 2021/7/20 下午6:23, Stefan Hajnoczi 写道:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:13:37PM +0800, Xianting Tian wrote:
>> Add the missed virtio_device_ready() to set vsock frontend ready.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xianting Tian<xianting.tian@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> Please include a changelog when you send v2, v3, etc patches.
OK, thanks.
>> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>> index e0c2c992a..dc834b8fd 100644
>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>> @@ -639,6 +639,8 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>   
>>   	mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
>>   
>> +	virtio_device_ready(vdev);
> Why is this patch necessary?

Sorry, I didn't notice the check in virtio_dev_probe(),

As Jason comment,  I alsoe think we need to be consistent: switch to use 
virtio_device_ready() for all the drivers. What's opinion about this?

> The core virtio_dev_probe() code already calls virtio_device_ready for
> us:
>
>    static int virtio_dev_probe(struct device *_d)
>    {
>        ...
>        err = drv->probe(dev);
>        if (err)
>            goto err;
>    
>        /* If probe didn't do it, mark device DRIVER_OK ourselves. */
>        if (!(dev->config->get_status(dev) & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK))
>            virtio_device_ready(dev);