All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 4/6] devlink: Clean registration of devlink port
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:32:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YZYBhArHOAbLfOUb@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211117204929.4bd24597@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 08:49:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:26:20 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > devlink_port_register() is in-kernel API and as such can't really fail
> > as long as driver author didn't make a mistake by providing already existing
> > port index. Instead of relying on various error prints from the driver,
> > convert the existence check to be WARN_ON(), so such a mistake will be
> > caught easier.
> > 
> > As an outcome of this conversion, it was made clear that this function
> > should be void and devlink->lock was intended to protect addition to
> > port_list.
> 
> Leave this error checking in please.

Are you referring to error checks in the drivers or the below section
from devlink_port_register()?

       mutex_lock(&devlink->lock);
       if (devlink_port_index_exists(devlink, port_index)) {
               mutex_unlock(&devlink->lock);
               return -EEXIST;
       }

Because if it is latter, any driver (I didn't find any) that will rely
on this -EEXIST field should have some sort of locking in top level.
Otherwise nothing will prevent from doing port unregister right
before "return --EXEEXIST".

So change to WARN_ON() will be much more effective in finding wrong
drivers, because they manage port_index and not devlink.

And because this function can't fail, the drivers have a plenty of dead
code.

Thanks

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Aya Levin <ayal@mellanox.com>,
	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
	drivers@pensando.io, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@corigine.com,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
	Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io>,
	Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>,
	Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@marvell.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
	UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] devlink: Clean registration of devlink port
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:32:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YZYBhArHOAbLfOUb@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211117204929.4bd24597@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 08:49:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:26:20 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > devlink_port_register() is in-kernel API and as such can't really fail
> > as long as driver author didn't make a mistake by providing already existing
> > port index. Instead of relying on various error prints from the driver,
> > convert the existence check to be WARN_ON(), so such a mistake will be
> > caught easier.
> > 
> > As an outcome of this conversion, it was made clear that this function
> > should be void and devlink->lock was intended to protect addition to
> > port_list.
> 
> Leave this error checking in please.

Are you referring to error checks in the drivers or the below section
from devlink_port_register()?

       mutex_lock(&devlink->lock);
       if (devlink_port_index_exists(devlink, port_index)) {
               mutex_unlock(&devlink->lock);
               return -EEXIST;
       }

Because if it is latter, any driver (I didn't find any) that will rely
on this -EEXIST field should have some sort of locking in top level.
Otherwise nothing will prevent from doing port unregister right
before "return --EXEEXIST".

So change to WARN_ON() will be much more effective in finding wrong
drivers, because they manage port_index and not devlink.

And because this function can't fail, the drivers have a plenty of dead
code.

Thanks

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-18  7:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-17 18:26 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 0/6] Devlink cleanups Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 1/6] devlink: Remove misleading internal_flags from health reporter dump Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26   ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 2/6] devlink: Delete useless checks of holding devlink lock Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26   ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 3/6] devlink: Simplify devlink resources unregister call Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26   ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 4/6] devlink: Clean registration of devlink port Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26   ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-18  4:49   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-18  4:49     ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-18  7:32     ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]
2021-11-18  7:32       ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 5/6] devlink: Reshuffle resource registration logic Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26   ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-18  4:49   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-18  4:49     ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-18  7:50     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-18  7:50       ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-19  1:48       ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-19  1:48         ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-19 15:38         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-19 15:38           ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-19 16:10           ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-19 16:10             ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-21  8:45             ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-21  8:45               ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-23  2:27               ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-23  2:27                 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-23  8:33                 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-23  8:33                   ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-23 23:33                   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-23 23:33                     ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-11-25  9:02                     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-25  9:02                       ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 6/6] devlink: Inline sb related functions Leon Romanovsky
2021-11-17 18:26   ` Leon Romanovsky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YZYBhArHOAbLfOUb@unreal \
    --to=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.