netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: dsa: tear down devlink port regions when tearing down the devlink port on error

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:   Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:01:32 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: dsa: tear down devlink port regions when
 tearing down the devlink port on error

On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 02:07:35PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 01:47:51PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 01:31:25PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 01:25:03PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 11:45:18AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 10:07:45AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:17:38AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > 
> > <...>
> > 
> > > > That sentence means that your change is OK and you did it right by not
> > > > changing devlink port to hold not-working ports.
> > > 
> > > You're with me so far.
> > > 
> > > There is a second part. The ports with 'status = "disabled"' in the
> > > device tree still get devlink ports registered, but with the
> > > DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_UNUSED flavour and no netdev. These devlink ports
> > > still have things like port regions exported.
> > > 
> > > What we do for ports that have failed to probe is to reinit their
> > > devlink ports as DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_UNUSED, and their port regions, so
> > > they effectively behave as though they were disabled in the device tree.
> > 
> > Yes, and this part require DSA knowledge that I don't have, because you
> > suggest fallback for any error during devlink port register,
> 
> Again, fallback but not during devlink port register. The devlink port
> was registered just fine, but our plans changed midway. If you want to
> create a net device with an associated devlink port, first you need to
> create the devlink port and then the net device, then you need to link
> the two using devlink_port_type_eth_set, at least according to my
> understanding.
> 
> So the failure is during the creation of the **net device**, we now have a
> devlink port which was originally intended to be of the Ethernet type
> and have a physical flavour, but it will not be backed by any net device,
> because the creation of that just failed. So the question is simply what
> to do with that devlink port.

I lost you here, from known to me from the NIC, the **net devices** are
created with devlink_alloc() API call and devlink_port_register comes
later. It means that net device is created (or not) before devlink port
code.

Anyway, it is really not important to me as long as changes won't touch
net/core/devlink.c.

Thanks