netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 1/8] sfc: add devlink support for ef100

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, 1 Feb 2023 11:01:48 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-net-drivers (AMD-Xilinx)" <linux-net-drivers@....com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "habetsm.xilinx@...il.com" <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
        "ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "jiri@...dia.com" <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 1/8] sfc: add devlink support for ef100

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:07:33 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >This is due to the recommended/required devlink lock/unlock during 
> >driver initialization/removal.
> >
> >I think it is better to keep the lock/unlock inside the specific driver 
> >devlink code, and the functions naming reflects a time window when 
> >devlink related/dependent processing is being done.
> >
> >I'm not against changing this, maybe adding the lock/unlock suffix would 
> >be preferable?:
> >
> >int efx_probe_devlink_and_lock(struct efx_nic *efx);
> >void efx_probe_devlink_unlock(struct efx_nic *efx);
> >void efx_fini_devlink_lock(struct efx_nic *efx);
> >void efx_fini_devlink_and_unlock(struct efx_nic *efx);  
> 
> Sounds better. Thanks!

FWIW I'd just take the devl lock in the main driver code.
devlink should be viewed as a layer between bus and driver rather 
than as another subsystem the driver registers with. Otherwise reloads
and port creation get awkward.

But the above sounds okay, too.