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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:23:23 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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,
        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

Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 08:36:36AM CET, leon@...nel.org wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:59:15PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> 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...
>
>I don't see anything in the tree what will prevent the issue
>which I wrote in 05a7f4a8dff19.

Okay. I will remove this patch from the set and address this in a
separate patchset. Thanks!

>
>Thanks