On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 01:14:51PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 09:43 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:51:12PM +0300, Arseny Maslennikov wrote:

quoted

Some tools may currently be using only the deprecated attribute;
let's print an elaborate and clear deprecation notice to kmsg.

To do that, we have to replace the whole sysfs file, since we inherit
the original one from netdev.

Signed-off-by: Arseny Maslennikov <redacted>
 drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_main.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_main.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_main.c
index 30f840f874b3..74732726ec6f 100644
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_main.c

@@ -2386,6 +2386,35 @@ int ipoib_add_pkey_attr(struct net_device *dev)
 	return device_create_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_pkey);
 }
 
+/*
+ * We erroneously exposed the iface's port number in the dev_id
+ * sysfs field long after dev_port was introduced for that purpose[1],
+ * and we need to stop everyone from relying on that.
+ * Let's overload the shower routine for the dev_id file here
+ * to gently bring the issue up.
+ *
+ * [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg272123.html
+ */
+static ssize_t dev_id_show(struct device *dev,
+			   struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
+{
+	struct net_device *ndev = to_net_dev(dev);
+
+	if (ndev->dev_id == ndev->dev_port)
+		netdev_info_once(ndev,
+			"\"%s\" wants to know my dev_id. Should it look at dev_port instead? See Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-net for more info.\n",
+			current->comm);
+
+	return sprintf(buf, "%#x\n", ndev->dev_id);
+}
+static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(dev_id);
+
+int ipoib_intercept_dev_id_attr(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+	device_remove_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_dev_id);
+	return device_create_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_dev_id);
+}

Isn't this racey with userspace? Ie what happens if udev is querying
the dev_id right here?

Do we know there is no userspace doing this?

I don't think that it can race (or reasonably can).  The intercept
function is done as part of ipoib_add_port() so the port itself isn't
live yet.

The above code is after register_netdev, so the port itself is
certainly live as far as userspace is concerned..

All the other sysfs stuff in add_port is already wrong/racy.. See
Parav's recent series fixing this for the main devices..

Jason