netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 5/7] net: dsa: avoid DT validation for drivers which provide default config

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: <ae2c68da-2059-40f3-ad77-e1b6c23d28e5@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 21:14:31 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 5/7] net: dsa: avoid DT validation for
 drivers which provide default config

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 08:09:12PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 07:51:22PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:00:16PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > When a DSA driver (e.g. mv88e6xxx) provides a default configuration,
> > > avoid validating the DT description as missing elements will be
> > > provided by the DSA driver.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > > ---
> > >  net/dsa/port.c | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/net/dsa/port.c b/net/dsa/port.c
> > > index c30e3a7d2145..23d9970c02d3 100644
> > > --- a/net/dsa/port.c
> > > +++ b/net/dsa/port.c
> > > @@ -1951,6 +1951,9 @@ static void dsa_shared_port_validate_of(struct dsa_port *dp,
> > >  	*missing_phy_mode = false;
> > >  	*missing_link_description = false;
> > >  
> > > +	if (dp->ds->ops->port_get_fwnode)
> > > +		return;
> > 
> > I wounder if you should actually call it for the given port, and
> > ensure it does not return -EOPNOTSUPP, or -EINVAL, etc, because it is
> > not going to override that port? Then the DT values should be
> > validated?
> 
> Won't that mean that we need to implement the method for all DSA
> drivers?

I mean call it if it exists. We should be only providing overrides for
CPU and DSA ports, i think. So i expect it returns an error for user
ports? And then we want to continue with the validation with what
actually is in DT for user ports.

	 Andrew