netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH fwctl 2/5] pds_core: add new fwctl auxilary

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250212120239.00001f0a@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:02:39 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>
CC: <jgg@...dia.com>, <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
	<aron.silverton@...cle.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	<daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>, <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	<gospo@...adcom.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <itayavr@...dia.com>,
	<jiri@...dia.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <lbloch@...dia.com>,
	<leonro@...dia.com>, <saeedm@...dia.com>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<brett.creeley@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH fwctl 2/5] pds_core: add new fwctl auxilary_device

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:48:51 -0800
Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com> wrote:

> Add support for a new fwctl-based auxiliary_device for creating a
> channel for fwctl support into the AMD/Pensando DSC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>

Hi Shannon,

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/pds_core/main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/pds_core/main.c
> index a3a68889137b..7f20c3f5f349 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/pds_core/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/pds_core/main.c
> @@ -265,6 +265,10 @@ static int pdsc_init_pf(struct pdsc *pdsc)
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&pdsc->config_lock);
>  
> +	err = pdsc_auxbus_dev_add(pdsc, pdsc, PDS_DEV_TYPE_FWCTL, &pdsc->padev);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto err_out_teardown;
> +

If you fail after this point, do you not want to remove this device?
Also superficially shouldn't this be goto err_out_stop? I think
the call is just after pdsc_start(pdsc) though maybe I'm looking at
an old tree.


>  	dl = priv_to_devlink(pdsc);
>  	devl_lock(dl);
>  	err = devl_params_register(dl, pdsc_dl_params,