netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: avoid devm_alloc

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: <48ca3541-df4a-4215-b81b-80d6ed8145c3@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 14:37:15 +0300
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Grygorii Strashko
 <grygorii.strashko@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: avoid
 devm_alloc_etherdev, fix module removal

On 05/10/2024 23:26, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, Roger Quadros wrote:
> 
>>> If you know of a way to do this differently I'm all ears.
>>
>> I sent another approach already. please check.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/67c9ede4-9751-4255-b752-27dd60495ff3@kernel.org/
> 
> Seems to work correctly.
> 
> Still... given this paragraph found in Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst:
> 
> |Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all "auto-cleanup" APIs,
> |including even ``devm_`` helpers, historically. They are not the preferred
> |style of implementation, merely an acceptable one.
> 
> and given my solution is way simpler, I tend to also prefer it over yours.

OK. Let's go with yours as it makes the driver more compliant to netdev
guidelines.

> 
> But I'm not the maintainer nor even a significant contributor here so as 
> long as the issue is fixed I won't mind.
> 
>>> About the many error cases needing the freeing of net devices, as far as 
>>> I know they're all covered with this patch.
>>
>> No they are not.
> 
> As I said yesterday, I do still stand by my affirmation that they are.
> Please look at the entire return path and you'll see that everything is 
> covered.

Indeed, my bad. It wasn't obvious by just looking at the patch but when looking at
the code it is called via am65_cpsw_nuss_cleanup_ndev().

> 
> 
> Nicolas

-- 
cheers,
-roger