netdev - Re: [patch net-next 1/8] devlink: call devlink_port_register/unregister() on registered instance

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: <Y47yMItMuOfCrwiO@nanopsycho>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 08:41:36 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        ioana.ciornei@....com, dmichail@...gible.com,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
        tchornyi@...vell.com, tariqt@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
        leon@...nel.org, idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com,
        vladimir.oltean@....com, claudiu.manoil@....com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        shannon.nelson@....com, brett.creeley@....com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 1/8] devlink: call
 devlink_port_register/unregister() on registered instance

Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:55:32AM CET, shnelson@....com wrote:
>On 12/5/22 7:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> 
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>> 
>> Change the drivers that use devlink_port_register/unregister() to call
>> these functions only in case devlink is registered.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> RFC->v1:
>> - shortened patch subject
>> ---
>>   .../net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_devlink.c | 29 ++++++++++---------
>>   .../net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-eth.c  |  7 +++--
>>   .../ethernet/fungible/funeth/funeth_main.c    | 17 +++++++----
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c     | 21 ++++++++------
>>   .../ethernet/marvell/prestera/prestera_main.c |  6 ++--
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_vsc7514.c    | 10 +++----
>>   .../ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_devlink.c   |  6 ++--
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c      |  7 +++--
>>   8 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>> 
>
>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_devlink.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_devlink.c
>> index e6ff757895ab..06670343f90b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_devlink.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_devlink.c
>> @@ -78,16 +78,18 @@ int ionic_devlink_register(struct ionic *ionic)
>>          struct devlink_port_attrs attrs = {};
>>          int err;
>> 
>> +       devlink_register(dl);
>> +
>>          attrs.flavour = DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_PHYSICAL;
>>          devlink_port_attrs_set(&ionic->dl_port, &attrs);
>>          err = devlink_port_register(dl, &ionic->dl_port, 0);
>>          if (err) {
>>                  dev_err(ionic->dev, "devlink_port_register failed: %d\n", err);
>> +               devlink_unregister(dl);
>>                  return err;
>>          }
>> 
>>          SET_NETDEV_DEVLINK_PORT(ionic->lif->netdev, &ionic->dl_port);
>> -       devlink_register(dl);
>>          return 0;
>>   }
>> 
>> @@ -95,6 +97,6 @@ void ionic_devlink_unregister(struct ionic *ionic)
>>   {
>>          struct devlink *dl = priv_to_devlink(ionic);
>> 
>> -       devlink_unregister(dl);
>>          devlink_port_unregister(&ionic->dl_port);
>> +       devlink_unregister(dl);
>>   }
>
>I don't know about the rest of the drivers, but this seems to be the exact
>opposite of what Leon did in this patch over a year ago:
>https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1632565508.git.leonro@nvidia.com/

This patch did move for all objects, even for those where no issue
existed. Ports are such.


>
>I haven't kept up on all the discussion about this, but is there no longer a
>worry about registering the devlink object before all the related
>configuration bits are in place?
>
>Does this open any potential issues with userland programs seeing the devlink
>device and trying to access port before they get registered?

What exactly do you have in mind? Could you please describe it?

>
>sln
>
>