Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: Do not leave DSA master with NULL
 netdev_ops
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, allen.pais@oracle.com,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200504201806.27192-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
 <CA+h21ho50twA=D=kZYxVuE=C6gf=8JeXmTEHhV30p_30oQZjjA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b32f205a-6ff3-e1db-33d1-6518091f90b4@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 13:40:32 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+h21ho50twA=D=kZYxVuE=C6gf=8JeXmTEHhV30p_30oQZjjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 5/4/2020 1:34 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> 
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 23:19, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When ndo_get_phys_port_name() for the CPU port was added we introduced
>> an early check for when the DSA master network device in
>> dsa_master_ndo_setup() already implements ndo_get_phys_port_name(). When
>> we perform the teardown operation in dsa_master_ndo_teardown() we would
>> not be checking that cpu_dp->orig_ndo_ops was successfully allocated and
>> non-NULL initialized.
>>
>> With network device drivers such as virtio_net, this leads to a NPD as
>> soon as the DSA switch hanging off of it gets torn down because we are
>> now assigning the virtio_net device's netdev_ops a NULL pointer.
>>
>> Fixes: da7b9e9b00d4 ("net: dsa: Add ndo_get_phys_port_name() for CPU port")
>> Reported-by: Allen Pais <allen.pais@oracle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>> ---
> 
> The fix makes complete sense.
> But on another note, if we don't overlay an ndo_get_phys_port_name if
> the master already has one, doesn't that render the entire mechanism
> of having a reliable way for user space to determine the CPU port
> number pointless?

For the CPU port I would consider ndo_get_phys_port_name() to be more
best effort than an absolute need unlike the user facing ports, where
this is necessary for a variety of actions (e.g.: determining
queues/port numbers etc.) which is why there was no overlay being done
in that case. There is not a good way to cascade the information other
than do something like pX.Y and defining what the X and Y are, what do
you think?
-- 
Florian