Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:55:31PM IDT, nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On 10/12/2015 07:39 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:41:08PM IDT, razor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> Hi, >> >>> Ido Schimmel reported a problem with switchdev devices because of the >>> order change of del_nbp operations, more specifically the move of >>> nbp_vlan_flush() which deletes all vlans and frees vlgrp after the >>> rx_handler has been unregistered. So in order to fix this break >>> vlan_flush in two phases: >>> 1. delete all of vlan_group's vlans >>> 2. destroy rhtable and free vlgrp >>> We execute phase I (free_rht == false) in the same place as before so the >>> vlans can be cleared and free the vlgrp after the rx_handler has been >>> unregistered in phase II (free_rht == true). >> I don't fully understand the reason for the two-phase cleanup. Please >> see below. >>> >>> Reported-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Ido: I hope this fixes it for your case, a test would be much appreciated. >> This indeed fixes our switchdev issue. Thanks for the fix! >>> >[snip] >>> >>> -static void __vlan_flush(struct net_bridge_vlan_group *vlgrp) >>> +static void __vlan_flush(struct net_bridge_vlan_group *vlgrp, bool free_rht) >>> { >>> struct net_bridge_vlan *vlan, *tmp; >>> >>> __vlan_delete_pvid(vlgrp, vlgrp->pvid); >>> list_for_each_entry_safe(vlan, tmp, &vlgrp->vlan_list, vlist) >>> __vlan_del(vlan); >>> - rhashtable_destroy(&vlgrp->vlan_hash); >>> - kfree_rcu(vlgrp, rcu); >>> + >> Why not just issue a synchronize_rcu here and remove the if statement? I >> believe that would also be better for when we remove the bridge device >> itself. It's fully symmetric with init that way. >Hi, >I considered that, but I don't want to issue a second synchronize_rcu() for each >port when deleting them, with this change we avoid a second synchronize_rcu() >and use the rx_handler unregister one. In complex setups with lots of ports >this is a considerable overhead. Yep, I assumed that was the reason. >For the bridge device del case - the call is the same, there're no two phases >there. I know, but wouldn't it be a problem to delete the rhashtable in case of a bridge? You don't have a synchronize_rcu just before as with ports or are you relying on the kfree_rcu(masterv, rcu) in br_vlan_put_master? It's probably a non-issue, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thanks. > >Cheers, > Nik