netdev - Re: [PATCH v17 05/22] sfc: setup cxl component regs and set media ready

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: <b1f3652e-6ee0-4222-8d31-73b9e57b8ede@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 14:11:16 +0100
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 alejandro.lucero-palau@....com
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, edward.cree@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dave.jiang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/22] sfc: setup cxl component regs and set media
 ready

<snip>


>>>   +#include <cxl/cxl.h>
>>>   #include <cxl/pci.h>
>>>   #include <linux/pci.h>
>>>   @@ -23,6 +24,7 @@ int efx_cxl_init(struct efx_probe_data *probe_data)
>>>       struct pci_dev *pci_dev = efx->pci_dev;
>>>       struct efx_cxl *cxl;
>>>       u16 dvsec;
>>> +    int rc;
>>>         probe_data->cxl_pio_initialised = false;
>>>   @@ -43,6 +45,38 @@ int efx_cxl_init(struct efx_probe_data 
>>> *probe_data)
>>>       if (!cxl)
>>>           return -ENOMEM;
>>>   +    rc = cxl_pci_setup_regs(pci_dev, CXL_REGLOC_RBI_COMPONENT,
>>> +                &cxl->cxlds.reg_map);
>>> +    if (rc) {
>>> +        dev_warn(&pci_dev->dev, "No component registers 
>>> (err=%d)\n", rc);
>>> +        return rc;
>> I haven't checked the code paths to see if we might hit them but this 
>> might
>> defer.  In which case
>>         return dev_err_probe() is appropriate as it stashes away the
>> cause of deferral for debugging purposes and doesn't print if that's 
>> what
>> happened as we'll be back later.
>>
>> If we can hit the deferral then you should catch that at the caller 
>> of efx_cxl_init()
>> and fail the probe (we'll be back a bit later and should then succeed).
>>
>
> I'm scare of opening this can ... but I think adding probe deferral 
> support to the sfc driver is not an option, or at least something we 
> want to avoid because the complexity it would add.
>
>

It turns out the EPROBE_DEFER can only be obtained in this call if it is 
a restricted cxl device, so nothing to care about for sfc.


Seizing this reply for telling you I'm going to squash this patch with 
the previous one which you gave your review tag, so I think it is better 
to not add yours after this squashing, but happy to do soon ...


Thank you