Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: unregister_netdevice: waiting for DEV to become free (2) | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Sun, 28 Apr 2019 08:04:18 -0700 |
| |
On 4/27/19 9:22 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2019/04/28 8:52, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On 4/27/19 3:33 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >>> >>> I'm waiting for davem why it is safe to move the dst entry from >>> "a device to unregister" to "a loopback device in that namespace". >>> I'm waiting for an explanation how the dst entry which was moved to >>> "a loopback device in that namespace" is released (i.e. what the >>> expected shutdown sequence is). >> >> The most probable explanation is that we make sure the loopback device >> is the last one to be dismantled at netns deletion, >> and this would obviously happen after all dst have been released. >> > > rt_flush_dev() becomes a no-op if "dev" == "a loopback device in that > namespace". And according to debug printk(), rt_flush_dev() is called > on "a loopback device in that namespace" itself. >
This is the design yes. We can not let a dst having a pointer to some garbage memory. (since we are going to free it very soon)
dst can be long lived objects. netdev (but loopback) are not.
> If "a loopback device in that namespace" is the last "one" (== "a network > device in that namespace" ?), which shutdown sequence should have called > dev_put("a loopback device in that namespace") before unregistration of > "a loopback device in that namespace" starts?
You'll have to study all the netdev notifiers to answer this question. They are many of them, and they have a priority to let them run in a given order.
> > Since I'm not a netdev person, I appreciate if you can explain > that shutdown sequence using a flow chart.
I am a netdev person, but I have no time to explain this at this moment.
| |