netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 08/13] net: phylink: Represent PHY-less SFP modules with phy

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: <7947c611-982f-4ece-b7f4-d151f728fe6f@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:36:16 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Christophe Leroy
 <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
 Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
 Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
 Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
 Nicolò Veronese <nicveronese@...il.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, mwojtas@...omium.org,
 Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
 Dimitri Fedrau <dimitri.fedrau@...bherr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/13] net: phylink: Represent PHY-less SFP
 modules with phy_port



On 28/01/2026 17:01, Romain Gantois wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2026 14:41:56 CET Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> ...
>> @@ -1786,13 +1787,31 @@ static int phylink_create_sfp_port(struct phylink
>> *pl) else
>>
>>  		pl->sfp_bus_port = port;
>>
>> +	if (pl->mod_port) {
>> +		ret = phy_link_topo_add_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto out_bus_port;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +out_bus_port:
>> +	phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, port);
> 
> This seems strange to me. Why clean up after phy_link_topo_add_port() if it 
> returned an error code? Presumably phy_link_topo_add_port() cleans up after 
> itself if it encounters an error doesn't it?

Because we're not cleaning up the same port, notice the 'port' vs
'pl->mod_port' params :)

> 
>> +	phy_port_destroy(port);
>>
>>  	return ret;
>>  
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void phylink_destroy_sfp_port(struct phylink *pl)
>>  {
>>
>> -	if (pl->netdev && pl->sfp_bus_port)
>> -		phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
>> +	if (pl->netdev) {
>> +		if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
>> +			phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
>> +
>> +		/* Only remove it from the topology, it will be destroyed at
>> +		 * module removal.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (pl->mod_port)
>> +			phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
>> +	}
>>
>>  	if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
>>  	
>>  		phy_port_destroy(pl->sfp_bus_port);
>>
>> @@ -3998,6 +4017,49 @@ static void phylink_sfp_disconnect_phy(void
>> *upstream, phylink_disconnect_phy(upstream);
>>
>>  }
>>
>> +static int phylink_sfp_connect_nophy(void *upstream)
> 
> I'd name this "phylink_sfp_connect_no_phy" just to keep the name formatting 
> consistent.

having 'nophy' as a single word made it clearer that this was "phy" vs
"nophy" IMO, rather than potentially interpreting "phy" as a suffix. but
I see your point, I think I'll rename it :)

Maxime

> 
> Thanks,
>