Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

Vladimir Oltean
2022-07-15T20:49:33Z

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:33:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > >
> > > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> >
> > Could you be more clear about the exact concern?
>
> Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
> means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
> system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
> end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
> names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
> script to see what's in the kernel.

So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
determine whether it'll fail?

Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.