# Re: \[PATCH net-next 0/5\] Move devlink\_register to be near devlink\_reload\_enable

- From: Leon Romanovsky \<leon@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2021-08-11 14:36:42 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/08/1475134
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/08/1473137/t.md

```text
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:18:17AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 17:01:20 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > Not really, they will register but won't be accessible from the user space.
> > > > The only difference is the location of "[dev,new] ..." notification.  
> > > 
> > > Is that because of mlx5's use of auxdev, or locking? I don't see
> > > anything that should prevent the port notification from coming out.  
> > 
> > And it is ok, kernel can (and does) send notifications, because we left
> > devlink_ops assignment to be in devlink_alloc(). It ensures that all
> > flows that worked before will continue to work without too much changes.
> > 
> > > I think the notifications need to get straightened out, we can't notify
> > > about sub-objects until the object is registered, since they are
> > > inaccessible.  
> > 
> > I'm not sure about that. You present the case where kernel and user
> > space races against each other and historically kernel doesn't protect
> > from such flows. 
> > 
> > For example, you can randomly remove and add kernel modules. At some
> > point of time, you will get "missing symbols errors", just because
> > one module tries to load and it depends on already removed one.
> 
> Sure. But there is a difference between an error because another
> actor did something conflicting, asynchronously, and API which by design
> sends notifications which can't be acted upon until later point in time,
> because kernel sent them too early.
> 
> > We must protect kernel and this is what I do. User shouldn't access
> > devlink instance before he sees "dev name" notification.
> 
> Which is a new rule, and therefore a uAPI change..
> 
> > Of course, we can move various iterators to devlink_register(), but it
> > will make code much complex, because we have objects that can be
> > registered at any time (IMHO. trap is one of them) and I will need to 
> > implement notification logic that separate objects that were created
> > before devlink_register and after.
> 
> I appreciate it's a PITA but it is the downside of a solution where
> registration of co-dependent objects exposed via devlink is reordered 
> in the kernel.

No problem, I will rewrite notification logic to be queue-based mechanism.

Thanks
```