Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 08:54:05PM CEST, dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Jiri Pirko a écrit :
<snip>
>> +static int __hw_addr_add_ii(struct list_head *list, unsigned char *addr,
>> + int addr_len, int ignore_index)
>> +{
>> + struct netdev_hw_addr *ha;
>> + int i = 0;
>> +
>> + if (addr_len > MAX_ADDR_LEN)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>
>Please put here the ASSERT_RTNL(), not in various callers, since
>this is the place where we really assume rtnl lock is locked by us.
Well I'd like to have ASSERT_RTNL in callers. The reason is that for this
purpose (dev_addr) the guarding lock is rtnl. But for example for multicast
addresses it won't be. It will be most probably a spin lock. But those callers
(multicast) will use this __hw_addr_xxx functions too. Therefore I'd like to
leave locking on current level.
>
>You still use rcu_read_lock()/unlock() and rcu variant here...
Yes this is unecessrary and confusing I agree. Will remove these read locks in
places where there is guarded by rtnl mutex.
>
>But caller of this function has RTNL (or other lock) so dont use rcu here, as it seems
>inconsistent with kzalloc() code that comes next.
>
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(ha, list, list) {
>> + if (i++ != ignore_index &&
>> + !memcmp(ha->addr, addr, addr_len)) {
>> + ha->refcount++;
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> +
>> + ha = kzalloc(max(sizeof(*ha), L1_CACHE_BYTES), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + if (!ha)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + memcpy(ha->addr, addr, addr_len);
>> + ha->refcount = 1;
>> + list_add_tail_rcu(&ha->list, list);
>> + return 0;
<snip>
>> +static int __hw_addr_add_multiple_ii(struct list_head *to_list,
>> + struct list_head *from_list,
>> + int addr_len, int ignore_index)
>> +{
>> + int err = 0;
>> + struct netdev_hw_addr *ha, *ha2;
>> +
>
>same here, no need for rcu_read_lock(), since you are going to change list, you
>have RTNL lock or equivalent.
>
Yes, I wanted to show that for "from_list" this is a reader...
....unnecessary,foolish -> removing...
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(ha, from_list, list) {
>> + err = __hw_addr_add_ii(to_list, ha->addr, addr_len, 0);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto unroll;
>> + }
>> + goto unlock;
>> +unroll:
>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(ha2, from_list, list) {
>> + if (ha2 == ha)
>> + break;
>> + __hw_addr_del_ii(to_list, ha2->addr, addr_len, 0);
>> + }
>> +unlock:
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return err;
>> +}
>> +
<snip>
>> +static void dev_addr_flush(struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + ASSERT_RTNL();
>> +
>> + __hw_addr_flush(&dev->dev_addr_list);
>> + dev->dev_addr = NULL;
>
>seems risky here to set this to NULL... You could use a static var to avoid
>further NULL dereference.
>
>static char nulladdr[MAX_ADDR_LEN];
>dev->dev_addr = nulladdr;
>
>> +}
>> +
<snip>
>> @@ -4257,6 +4521,9 @@ static void rollback_registered(struct net_device *dev)
>> */
>> dev_addr_discard(dev);
>>
>> + /* Flush device addresses */
>> + dev_addr_flush(dev);
>> +
>
>Are you sure that no driver in tree will dereference dev->dev_addr after this point ?
I assume that driver might not use dev_addr after it calls
unregister_netdevice(). But ok - I would rather move calling dev_addr_flush()
somewhere later where there is a guarantee that dev_addr should not be
referenced. Perhaps in free_netdev() ? It would also correspond with calling
dev_addr_init() in alloc_netdev_mq()...
>
>> if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_uninit)
>> dev->netdev_ops->ndo_uninit(dev);
>>
>> @@ -4779,6 +5046,7 @@ struct net_device *alloc_netdev_mq(int sizeof_priv, const char *name,
>>
>> dev->gso_max_size = GSO_MAX_SIZE;
>>
>> + dev_addr_init(dev);
>> netdev_init_queues(dev);
>>
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->napi_list);
>> @@ -4965,6 +5233,9 @@ int dev_change_net_namespace(struct net_device *dev, struct net *net, const char
>> */
>> dev_addr_discard(dev);
>>
>> + /* Flush device addresses */
>> + dev_addr_flush(dev);
>> +
>> netdev_unregister_kobject(dev);
>>
>> /* Actually switch the network namespace */
>
>
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
