netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phylink: remove "using_mac_select

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: <ZwkEv7rOlHqIqMIL@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:58:07 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phylink: remove "using_mac_select_pcs"

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 01:39:12PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 02:00:32PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:21:43PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Hmm. Looking at this again, we're getting into quite a mess because of
> > > one of your previous review comments from a number of years back.
> > > 
> > > You stated that you didn't see the need to support a transition from
> > > having-a-PCS to having-no-PCS. I don't have a link to that discussion.
> > > However, it is why we've ended up with phylink_major_config() having
> > > the extra complexity here, effectively preventing mac_select_pcs()
> > > from being able to remove a PCS that was previously added:
> > > 
> > > 		pcs_changed = pcs && pl->pcs != pcs;
> > > 
> > > because if mac_select_pcs() returns NULL, it was decided that any
> > > in-use PCS would not be removed. It seems (at least to me) to be a
> > > silly decision now.
> > > 
> > > However, if mac_select_pcs() in phylink_major_config() returns NULL,
> > > we don't do any validation of the PCS.
> > > 
> > > So this, today, before these patches, is already an inconsistent mess.
> > > 
> > > To fix this, I think:
> > > 
> > > 	struct phylink_pcs *pcs = NULL;
> > > ...
> > >         if (pl->mac_ops->mac_select_pcs) {
> > >                 pcs = pl->mac_ops->mac_select_pcs(pl->config, state->interface);
> > >                 if (IS_ERR(pcs))
> > >                         return PTR_ERR(pcs);
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > 	if (!pcs)
> > > 		pcs = pl->pcs;
> > > 
> > > is needed to give consistent behaviour.
> > > 
> > > Alternatively, we could allow mac_select_pcs() to return NULL, which
> > > would then allow the PCS to be removed.
> > > 
> > > Let me know if you've changed your mind on what behaviour we should
> > > have, because this affects what I do to sort this out.
> > 
> > Here's a link to the original discussion from November 2021:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/E1mpSba-00BXp6-9e@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/
> > 
> > Google uselessly refused to find it, so I searched my own mailboxes
> > to find the message ID.
> 
> Important note: I cannot find any discussion on any mailing list which
> fills the gap between me asking what is the real world applicability of
> mac_select_pcs() returning NULL after it has returned non-NULL, and the
> current phylink behavior, as described above by you. That behavior was
> first posted here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Ybiue1TPCwsdHmV4@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> in patches 1/7 and 2/7. I did not state that phylink should keep the old
> PCS around, and I do not take responsibility for that.

I wanted to add support for phylink_set_pcs() to remove the current
PCS and submitted a patch for it. You didn't see a use case and objected
to the patch, which wasn't merged. I've kept that behaviour ever since
on the grounds of your objection - as per the link that I posted.
This has been carried forward into the mac_select_pcs() implementation
where it explicitly does not allow a PCS to be removed. Pointing to
the introduction of mac_select_pcs() is later than your objection.

Let me restate it. As a *direct* result of your comments on patch 8/8
which starts here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/E1mpSba-00BXp6-9e@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/
I took your comments as meaning that you saw no reason why we should
allow a PCS to ever be removed. phylink_set_pcs() needed to be modified
to allow that to happen. Given your objection, that behaviour has been
carried forward by having explicit additional code to ensure that a
PCS can't be removed from phylink without replacing it with a different
PCS. In other words, mac_select_pcs() returning NULL when it has
previously returned a PCS does *nothing* to remove the previous PCS.

Maybe this was not your intention when reviewing patch 8/8, but that's
how your comments came over, and lead me to the conclusion that we
need to enforce that - and that is enforced by:

                pcs_changed = pcs && pl->pcs != pcs;

so pcs_change will always be false if pcs == NULL, thus preventing the
replacement of the pcs:

        if (pcs_changed) {
                phylink_pcs_disable(pl->pcs);

                if (pl->pcs)
                        pl->pcs->phylink = NULL;

                pcs->phylink = pl;

                pl->pcs = pcs;
        }

I wouldn't have coded it this way had you not objected to patch 8/8
which lead me to believe we should not allow a PCS to be removed.

Review comments do have implications for future patches... maybe it
wasn't want you intended, but this is a great example of cause and
(possibly unintended) effect.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!