On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > 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. I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine, let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
