On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <a...@plumgrid.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <a...@plumgrid.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <a...@plumgrid.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The combination of two commits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 8e4e1713e4
>>>>>> ("openvswitch: Simplify datapath locking.")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 2537b4dd0a
>>>>>> ("openvswitch:: link upper device for port devices")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> introduced a bug where upper_dev wasn't unlinked upon
>>>>>> netdev_unregister notification
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following steps:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> modprobe openvswitch
>>>>>> ovs-dpctl add-dp test
>>>>>> ip tuntap add dev tap1 mode tap
>>>>>> ovs-dpctl add-if test tap1
>>>>>> ip tuntap del dev tap1 mode tap
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are causing multiple warnings:
>>>>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/dp_notify.c b/net/openvswitch/dp_notify.c
>>>>>> index c323567..e9380bd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/dp_notify.c
>>>>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/dp_notify.c
>>>>>> @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ static int dp_device_event(struct notifier_block
>>>>>> *unused, unsigned long event,
>>>>>> return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (event == NETDEV_UNREGISTER) {
>>>>>> + /* rx_handler_unregister and upper_dev_unlink
>>>>>> immediately */
>>>>>> + if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING)
>>>>>> + ovs_netdev_unlink_dev(vport);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than doing vport destroy here, we can just unlink upper device
>>>>> and let workq do rest of work.
>>>>
>>>> isn't it what it's doing?
>>>
>>> I meant just call netdev_upper_dev_unlink() here in event handler and
>>> rest of vport destroy can be done in workq.
>>
>> netdev_upper_dev_unlink() without netdev_rx_handler_unregister() ?!
>> that's dangerous.
> why is it dangerous? ovs already had ref to net-device.
comment from dev.c:
/* Notify protocols, that we are about to destroy
this device. They should clean all the things.
*/
call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_UNREGISTER, dev);
so here you're suggesting to just netdev_upper_dev_unlink() to silence
the warning,
but then do dev_set_promisc(-1) in workqueue?
well, as a minimum audit of promiscuity will be wrong.
ndo_change_rx_flags will be called after ndo_uninit,
all sorts of other cleanups are done.
I cannot track all possible scenarios, but it seems much safer to
cleanup everything possible
as soon as ovs received NETDEV_UNREGISTER event.
May be all these risks are worth taking, then please explain what is
the problem with the proposed patch?
Thanks
Alex
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
