[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtVSQI5VHtCOTCHc@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:29:52 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Alvin __ipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to
be created
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:33:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > > >
> > > > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > > > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > > > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> > >
> > > Could you be more clear about the exact concern?
> >
> > Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
> > means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
> > system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
> > end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
> > names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
> > script to see what's in the kernel.
>
> So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> determine whether it'll fail?
>
> Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists