netdev - Re: [patch net-next v3 01/11] devlink: remove devlink features

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: <20230110125915.62d428fb@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:59:15 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, salil.mehta@...wei.com,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
        tariqt@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org,
        idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr,
        jacob.e.keller@...el.com, gal@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 01/11] devlink: remove devlink features

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:12:10 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Right, but this is not 100% equivalent because we generate the
>> notifications _before_ we try to reload_down:
>>
>>	devlink_ns_change_notify(devlink, dest_net, curr_net, false);
>>	err = devlink->ops->reload_down(devlink, !!dest_net, action, limit, extack);
>>	if (err)
>>		return err;
>>
>> IDK why, I haven't investigated.  
> 
> Right, but that is done even in other cases where down can't be done. I
> I think there's a bug here, down DEL notification is sent before calling
> down which can potentially fail. I think the notification call should be
> moved after reload_down() call. Then the bahaviour would stay the same
> for the features case and will get fixed for the reload_down() reject
> cases. What do you think?

I was gonna say that it sounds reasonable, and that maybe we should 
be in fact using devlink_notify_register() instead of the custom
instance-and-params-only devlink_ns_change_notify().

But then I looked at who added this counter-intuitive code
and found out it's for a reason - see 05a7f4a8dff19.

So you gotta check if mlx5 still has this problem...