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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <16653a95-7f87-42d5-afa2-fd7e8877553e@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:48:24 -0800
From: "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.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 2/12/2025 4:02 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 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.

Thanks, I'll fix this.
sln

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