On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:07:49PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 5/17/2021 9:47 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > IB has a complex sysfs with a deep nesting of attributes. Nathan and Kees > > recently noticed this was not even slightly sane with how it was handling > > attributes and a deeper inspection shows the whole thing is a pretty > > "ick" coding style. > > > > Further review shows the ick extends outward from the ib_port sysfs and > > basically everything is pretty crazy. > > > > Simplify all of it: > > > > - Organize the ib_port and gid_attr's kobj's to have clear setup/destroy > > function pairings that work only on their own kobjs. > > > > - All memory allocated in service of a kobject's attributes is freed as > > part of the kobj release function. Thus all the error handling defers > > the memory frees to a put. > > > > - Build up lists of groups for every kobject and add the entire group > > list as a one-shot operation as the last thing in setup function. > > > > - Remove essentially all the error cleanup. The final kobject_put() will > > always free any memory allocated or do an internal kobject_del() if > > required. The new ordering eliminates all the other cleanup cases. > > > > - Make all attributes use proper typing for the kobj they are attached > > to. Split device and port hw_stats handling. > > > > - Create a ib_port_attribute type and change hfi1, qib and the CM code to > > work with attribute lists of ib_port_attribute type instead of building > > their own kobject madness > > > > This is sort of RFCy in that I qib and hfi1 stuff is complex enough it needs > > Dennis to look at it, and the core stuff has only passed basic testing at this > > moment. Nathan confirmed an earlier version solves the CFI warning. > > This series still passes my basic testing of LTP's read_all test case on > /sys with CFI in enforcing mode. If there is any more in-depth testing, I > can put it through, let me know. I'll continue testing the series and when > it is in a mergeable state, I can provide you with a Tested-by tag. Thanks, I think you can probably ignore the following versions, confirmation that the approach and root cause is correct is much appreciated. Jason
