netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: Some cleanups in remove code

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: <20211109115434.oejplrd7rzmvad34@skbuf>
Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:54:34 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: Some cleanups in remove code

Your commit prefix does not reflect the fact that you are touching the
vsc73xx driver. Try "net: dsa: vsc73xx: ".

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 12:39:21PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> vsc73xx_remove() returns zero unconditionally and no caller checks the
> returned value. So convert the function to return no value.

This I agree with.

> For both the platform and the spi variant ..._get_drvdata() will never
> return NULL in .remove() because the remove callback is only called after
> the probe callback returned successfully and in this case driver data was
> set to a non-NULL value.

Have you read the commit message of 0650bf52b31f ("net: dsa: be
compatible with masters which unregister on shutdown")?

To remove the check for dev_get_drvdata == NULL in ->remove, you need to
prove that ->remove will never be called after ->shutdown. For platform
devices this is pretty easy to prove, for SPI devices not so much.
I intentionally kept the code structure the same because code gets
copied around a lot, it is easy to copy from the wrong place.

> Also setting driver data to NULL is not necessary, this is already done
> in the driver core in __device_release_driver(), so drop this from the
> remove callback, too.

And this was also intentional, for visibility more or less. I would like
you to ack that you understand the problems surrounding ->remove/->shutdown
ordering for devices on buses, prior to making seemingly trivial cleanups.

> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> ---