lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch net-next 01/16] net: introduce upper device lists
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 17:27 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> This lists are supposed to serve for storing pointers to all upper devices.
> Eventually it will replace dev->master pointer which is used for
> bonding, bridge, team but it cannot be used for vlan, macvlan where
> there might be multiple "masters" present.
>
> New upper device list resolves this limitation. Also, the information
> stored in lists is used for preventing looping setups like
> "bond->somethingelse->samebond"
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
[...]
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -4425,6 +4425,229 @@ static int __init dev_proc_init(void)
> #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
>
>
> +struct netdev_upper {
> + struct net_device *dev;
> + bool unique;

This needs a better name. It doesn't really have anything to do with
uniqueness and doesn't ensure exclusivity. I think that it would be
fine to keep the 'master' term.

> + struct list_head list;
> + struct rcu_head rcu;
> +};
[...]
> +static int __netdev_upper_dev_link(struct net_device *dev,
> + struct net_device *upper_dev, bool unique)
> +{
> + struct netdev_upper *upper;
> +
> + ASSERT_RTNL();
> +
> + if (dev == upper_dev)
> + return -EBUSY;
> + /*
> + * To prevent loops, check if dev is not upper device to upper_dev.
> + */
> + if (__netdev_has_upper_dev(upper_dev, dev, true))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + if (__netdev_find_upper(dev, upper_dev))
> + return -EEXIST;
> +
> + if (unique && netdev_unique_upper_dev_get(dev))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + upper = kmalloc(sizeof(*upper), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!upper)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + upper->dev = upper_dev;
> + upper->unique = unique;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that unique upper link is always the first item in the list.
> + */
> + if (unique)
> + list_add_rcu(&upper->list, &dev->upper_dev_list);
> + else
> + list_add_tail_rcu(&upper->list, &dev->upper_dev_list);
> + dev_hold(upper_dev);

This behaviour (calling dev_hold()) matches netdev_set_master(). But
it's oddly asymmetric: generally the administrator can remove either the
upper device or the lower device (rtnl_link_ops or unbinding a physical
device) and the upper device driver must then unlink itself from the
lower device (using a notifier to catch lower device removal).

If the upper device driver fails to unlink when the upper device is
unregistered, then this extra reference causes netdev_wait_allrefs() to
hang... is that the intent? Or should there be a more explicit counter
and check on unregistration, e.g. WARN_ON(dev->num_lower_devs != 0)?

If it fails to unlink when the lower device is removed, this warning in
rollback_registered_many() may be triggered:

/* Notifier chain MUST detach us from master device. */
WARN_ON(dev->master);
I think that needs to become WARN_ON(netdev_has_upper_dev(dev)).

> + return 0;
> +}
[...]

--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-13 22:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans