lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: unregister_netdevice: waiting for eth0 to become free. Usage count = 1
Hi Wei,

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:10:02PM -0700, Wei Wang wrote:
> I think we have a potential fix for this issue.
> Martin and I found that when addrconf_dst_alloc() creates a rt6, it is
> possible that rt6->dst.dev points to loopback device while
> rt6->rt6i_idev->dev points to a real device.
> When the real device goes down, the current fib6 clean up code only
> checks for rt6->dst.dev and assumes rt6->rt6i_idev->dev is the same.
> That leaves unreleased refcnt on the real device if rt6->dst.dev
> points to loopback dev.

[...]

> From 2d8861808c2029013f6b6e86120ba6902329145b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:36:04 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] potential fix for unregister_netdevice()
>
> Change-Id: I5d5f6f7a7ad0f5dd769f33487db17ff2570d52ea
> ---
> net/ipv6/route.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> index 4d30c96a819d..105922903932 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -417,14 +417,12 @@ static void ip6_dst_ifdown(struct dst_entry *dst, struct net_device *dev,
> struct net_device *loopback_dev =
> dev_net(dev)->loopback_dev;
>
> - if (dev != loopback_dev) {
> - if (idev && idev->dev == dev) {
> - struct inet6_dev *loopback_idev =
> - in6_dev_get(loopback_dev);
> - if (loopback_idev) {
> - rt->rt6i_idev = loopback_idev;
> - in6_dev_put(idev);
> - }
> + if (idev && idev->dev != loopback_dev) {
> + struct inet6_dev *loopback_idev =
> + in6_dev_get(loopback_dev);
> + if (loopback_idev) {
> + rt->rt6i_idev = loopback_idev;
> + in6_dev_put(idev);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -2789,7 +2787,8 @@ static int fib6_ifdown(struct rt6_info *rt, void *arg)
> const struct arg_dev_net *adn = arg;
> const struct net_device *dev = adn->dev;
>
> - if ((rt->dst.dev == dev || !dev) &&
> + if ((rt->dst.dev == dev || !dev ||
> + rt->rt6i_idev->dev == dev) &&

Can you please explain why this line is needed? While host routes aren't
removed from the FIB by rt6_ifdown() (when dst.dev goes down), they are
removed later on in addrconf_ifdown().

With your patch, if I check the return value of ip6_del_rt() in
__ipv6_ifa_notify() I see that -ENONET is returned. Because the host
route was already removed by rt6_ifdown(). When the line in question is
removed from the patch I don't get the error anymore.

Is it possible that in John's case the host route was correctly removed
from the FIB and that the unreleased reference was due to a wrong check
in ip6_dst_ifdown() (which you patched correctly AFAICT)?

Thanks

> rt != adn->net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry &&
> (rt->rt6i_nsiblings == 0 ||
> (dev && netdev_unregistering(dev)) ||
> --
> 2.14.0.434.g98096fd7a8-goog
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-12 20:12    [W:0.402 / U:5.748 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site