netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Register and unregister devlink traps on probe/remove device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YXhXT/u9bFADwEIo@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:30:23 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+93d5accfaefceedf43c1@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Register and unregister devlink
 traps on probe/remove device

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 12:02:34PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 19:14:58 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > By now I have spent more time arguing with you than you spent testing
> > > your patches and it's clear this discussion is not going anywhere.
> > > 
> > > Are you going to send a revert or I will? This is the fourth time I'm
> > > asking you.  
> > 
> > I understand your temptation to send revert, at the end it is the
> > easiest solution. However, I prefer to finish this discussion with
> > decision on how the end result in mlxsw will look like.
> > 
> > Let's hear Jiri and Jakub before we are rushing to revert something that
> > is correct in my opinion. We have whole week till merge window, and
> > revert takes less than 5 minutes, so no need to rush and do it before
> > direction is clear.
> 
> Having drivers in a broken state will not be conducive to calm discussions.
> Let's do a quick revert and unbreak the selftests.

No problem, I'll send a revert now, but what is your take on the direction?
IMHO, the mlxsw layering should be fixed. All this recursive devlink re-entry
looks horrible and adds unneeded complexity.

> 
> Speaking under correction, but the model of operation where we merge
> patches rather quickly necessarily must also mean we are quick to
> revert changes which broke stuff if the fix is not immediately obvious
> or disputed.