netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 03/11] net: pcs: Add subsystem

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: <4556e55b-2360-4780-a282-b2f04f5cc994@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 13:43:48 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: Lei Wei <quic_leiwei@...cinc.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: upstream@...oha.com, Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 03/11] net: pcs: Add subsystem

On 5/14/25 12:22, Lei Wei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/13/2025 12:10 AM, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * pcs_register_full() - register a new PCS
>> + * @dev: The device requesting the PCS
>> + * @fwnode: The PCS's firmware node; typically @dev.fwnode
>> + * @pcs: The PCS to register
>> + *
>> + * Registers a new PCS which can be attached to a phylink.
>> + *
>> + * Return: 0 on success, or -errno on error
>> + */
>> +int pcs_register_full(struct device *dev, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>> +              struct phylink_pcs *pcs)
>> +{
>> +    struct pcs_wrapper *wrapper;
>> +
>> +    if (!dev || !pcs->ops)
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +    if (!pcs->ops->pcs_an_restart || !pcs->ops->pcs_config ||
>> +        !pcs->ops->pcs_get_state)
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +    wrapper = kzalloc(sizeof(*wrapper), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +    if (!wrapper)
>> +        return -ENOMEM;
> 
> How about the case where pcs is removed and then comes back again? Should we find the original wrapper and attach it to pcs again instead of creating a new wrapper?

When the PCS is removed the old wrapper is removed from pcs_wrappers, so
it can no longer be looked up any more. I think trying to save/restore
the wrapper would be much more trouble than it's worth.

--Sean