netdev - Re: [RFT net-next 0/6] devlink: expose instance locking and simplify port splitting

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: <20220310121348.35d8fc41@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:13:48 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
Cc:     <idosch@...dia.com>, <petrm@...dia.com>,
        <simon.horman@...igine.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFT net-next 0/6] devlink: expose instance locking and
 simplify port splitting

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:07:14 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 04:16:26PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > This series puts the devlink ports fully under the devlink instance
> > lock's protection. As discussed in the past it implements my preferred
> > solution of exposing the instance lock to the drivers. This way drivers
> > which want to support port splitting can lock the devlink instance
> > themselves on the probe path, and we can take that lock in the core
> > on the split/unsplit paths.
> > 
> > nfp and mlxsw are converted, with slightly deeper changes done in
> > nfp since I'm more familiar with that driver.
> > 
> > Now that the devlink port is protected we can pass a pointer to
> > the drivers, instead of passing a port index and forcing the drivers
> > to do their own lookups. Both nfp and mlxsw can container_of() to
> > their own structures.
> > 
> > I'd appreciate some testing, I don't have access to this HW.
>
> Thanks for pursuing in cleanup this devlink mess.
> 
> Do you plan to send a series that removes devlink_mutex?

I would like to convert enough to explicit locking to allow simpler
reload handling. I'm happy to leave devlink_mutex removal to someone
else, but if there are no takers will do it as well. Let's see how 
it goes.