netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/7] software node: allow named software node to be created

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:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:39:29 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.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 1/7] software node: allow named software
 node to be created

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:29:24PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:59:55AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > > 
> > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.

...

> > > +fwnode_create_named_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
> > > +				  const struct fwnode_handle *parent,
> > > +				  const char *name)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > >  	struct software_node *node;
> > > @@ -930,6 +931,7 @@ fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
> > >  		return ERR_CAST(node);
> > >  
> > >  	node->parent = p ? p->node : NULL;
> > > +	node->name = name;
> > 
> > The same question stays as before: how can we be sure that the name is unique
> > and we won't have a collision?
> 
> This got discussed at length last time around, starting here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YtHGwz4v7VWKhIXG@smile.fi.intel.com/
> 
> My conclusion is that your concern is invalid, because we're creating
> this tree:
> 
> 	node%d
> 	+- phy-mode property
> 	`- fixed-link node
> 	   +- speed property
> 	   `- full-duplex (optional) property
> 
> Given that node%d will be allocated against the swnode_root_ids IDA,
> then how can there possibly be a naming collision.
> 
> You would be correct if the "fixed-link" node were to be created at
> root level, or if we were intentionally creating two swnodes under
> the same parent with the same name, but we aren't.
> 
> Plus, the code _already_ allows for e.g. multiple "node1" names - for
> example, one in root and one as a child node, since the code uses
> separate IDAs to allocate those.
> 
> Hence, I do not recognise the conern you are raising, and I believe
> your concern is not valid.
> 
> Your concern would be valid if it was a general concern about
> fwnode_create_named_software_node() being used to create the same
> named node under the same parent, but that IMHO is a programming
> bug, no different from trying to create two devices under the same
> parent with the same name.
> 
> So, unless you can be more expansive about _precisely_ what your
> concern is, then I don't think there exists any problem with this.

OK.

I leave it to others to review. I have nothing to add.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko