Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:04:11PM CEST, bhutchi...@solarflare.com wrote:
>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 <j...@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.
Hmm. I admit that "unique" I do not like too much as well. But "master"
I like even less.
This flag should ensure exclusivity. Only one upper device with this
flag can be present at a time.
>
>> + 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)?
>
I'm not sure I understand you. I believe that upper device notifier
should take care of the unlink. This behaviour is unchanged by the
patch.
>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)).
Patch 15
>
>> + 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.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
