On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 01:05:57PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > On 10/02/2021 13:01, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:52:33PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >> On 10/02/2021 12:45, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > >>> Hi Nikolay,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Vladimir,
> > >>>> Let's take a step back for a moment and discuss the bridge unlock/lock sequences
> > >>>> that come with this set. I'd really like to avoid those as they're a recipe
> > >>>> for future problems. The only good way to achieve that currently is to keep
> > >>>> the PRE_FLAGS call and do that in unsleepable context but move the FLAGS call
> > >>>> after the flags have been changed (if they have changed obviously). That would
> > >>>> make the code read much easier since we'll have all our lock/unlock sequences
> > >>>> in the same code blocks and won't play games to get sleepable context.
> > >>>> Please let's think and work in that direction, rather than having:
> > >>>> + spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock);
> > >>>> + if (err) {
> > >>>> + netdev_err(p->dev, "%s\n", extack._msg);
> > >>>> + return err;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>> +
> > >>>>
> > >>>> which immediately looks like a bug even though after some code checking we can
> > >>>> verify it's ok. WDYT?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I plan to get rid of most of the br->lock since it's been abused for a very long
> > >>>> time because it's essentially STP lock, but people have started using it for other
> > >>>> things and I plan to fix that when I get more time.
> > >>>
> > >>> This won't make the sysfs codepath any nicer, will it?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Currently we'll have to live with a hack that checks if the flags have changed. I agree
> > >> it won't be pretty, but we won't have to unlock and lock again in the middle of the
> > >> called function and we'll have all our locking in the same place, easier to verify and
> > >> later easier to remove. Once I get rid of most of the br->lock usage we can revisit
> > >> the drop of PRE_FLAGS if it's a problem. The alternative is to change the flags, then
> > >> send the switchdev notification outside of the lock and revert the flags if it doesn't
> > >> go through which doesn't sound much better.
> > >> I'm open to any other suggestions, but definitely would like to avoid playing locking games.
> > >> Even if it means casing out flag setting from all other store_ functions for sysfs.
> > >
> > > By casing out flag settings you mean something like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > #define BRPORT_ATTR(_name, _mode, _show, _store) \
> > > const struct brport_attribute brport_attr_##_name = { \
> > > .attr = {.name = __stringify(_name), \
> > > .mode = _mode }, \
> > > .show = _show, \
> > > .store_unlocked = _store, \
> > > };
> > >
> > > #define BRPORT_ATTR_FLAG(_name, _mask) \
> > > static ssize_t show_##_name(struct net_bridge_port *p, char *buf) \
> > > { \
> > > return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", !!(p->flags & _mask)); \
> > > } \
> > > static int store_##_name(struct net_bridge_port *p, unsigned long v) \
> > > { \
> > > return store_flag(p, v, _mask); \
> > > } \
> > > static BRPORT_ATTR(_name, 0644, \
> > > show_##_name, store_##_name)
> > >
> > > static ssize_t brport_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > struct attribute *attr,
> > > const char *buf, size_t count)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > >
> > > } else if (brport_attr->store_unlocked) {
> > > val = simple_strtoul(buf, &endp, 0);
> > > if (endp == buf)
> > > goto out_unlock;
> > > ret = brport_attr->store_unlocked(p, val);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this can work but will need a bit more changes because of br_port_flags_change().
> > Then the netlink side can be modeled in a similar way.
>
> What I just don't understand is how others can get away with doing
> sleepable work in atomic context but I can't make the notifier blocking
> by dropping a spinlock which isn't needed there, because it looks ugly :D
Can you please point to the bug? I'm not following
