Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:52:47 -0700
> Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Cong Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:38:57 +0200
>>>> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le lundi 12 avril 2010 à 18:37 +0800, Cong Wang a écrit :
>>>>>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no protection on dev->priv_flags for SMP access.
>>>>>>> It would better bit value in dev->state if you are using it as control flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you could use
>>>>>>> if (unlikely(test_and_clear_bit(__IN_NETPOLL, &skb->dev->state)))
>>>>>>> netpoll_send_skb(...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, I think we can't use ->state here, it is not for this kind of purpose,
>>>>>> according to its comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I find other usages of IFF_XXX flags of ->priv_flags are also using
>>>>>> &, | to set or clear the flags. So there must be some other things preventing
>>>>>> the race...
>>>>> Yes, its RTNL that protects priv_flags changes, hopefully...
>>>>>
>>>> The patch was not protecting priv_flags with RTNL.
>>>> For example..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @@ -308,7 +312,9 @@ static void netpoll_send_skb(struct netp
>>>> tries > 0; --tries) {
>>>> if (__netif_tx_trylock(txq)) {
>>>> if (!netif_tx_queue_stopped(txq)) {
>>>> + dev->priv_flags |= IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
>>>> status = ops->ndo_start_xmit(skb, dev);
>>>> + dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
>>>> if (status == NETDEV_TX_OK)
>>>> txq_trans_update(txq);
>>> Hmm, but I checked the bonding case (IFF_BONDING), it doesn't
>>> hold rtnl_lock. Strange.
>> I looked, and there are a couple of cases in bonding that don't
>> have RTNL for adjusting priv_flags (in bond_ab_arp_probe when no slaves
>> are up, and a couple of cases in 802.3ad). I think the solution there
>> is to move bonding away from priv_flags for some of this (e.g., convert
>> bonding to use a frame hook like bridge and macvlan, and greatly
>> simplify skb_bond_should_drop), but that's a separate topic.
>>
>> The majority of the cases, however, do hold RTNL. Bonding
>> generally doesn't have to acquire RTNL itself, since whatever called
>> into bonding is holding it already. For example, the slave add and
>> remove paths (bond_enslave, bond_release) are called either via sysfs or
>> ioctl, both of which acquire RTNL. All of the set and clear operations
>> for IFF_BONDING fall into this category; look at bonding_store_slaves
>> for an example.
>>
>> Bonding does acquire RTNL itself when performing failovers,
>> e.g., bond_mii_monitor holds RTNL prior to calling bond_miimon_commit,
>> which will change priv_flags.
>>
>
> All this was related to netpoll. And netpoll processing often needs to occur
> in hard IRQ context. Therefor netpoll stuff and RTNL (which is a mutex),
> really don't mix well. Keep RTNL for what it was meant for network
> reconfiguration. Don't turn it into a network special BKL.
>
Hmm, I think for my patch, holding RTNL lock is not necessary,
because there're no other call pathes to change IFF_IN_NETPOLL bit,
which is unlike bonding or bridge cases where sysfs/ioctl is provided
to change it.
The only chance to change IFF_IN_NETPOLL is in netpoll_send_skb()
which can't be called simultaneously because there are other locks
protecting it.
Or am I still missing something?
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
