Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:40:44PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49 PM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> >> Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:20:08AM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >> >So, you only send out notification when the last refcnt is gone. >> > >> >If the chain that is being deleted by a user is still used by an action, >> >you return 0 or -EPERM? >> >> 0 and the chain stays there until the action is removed. Hmm, do you thing >> that -EPERM should be returned in that case? The thing is, we have to >> flush the chain in order to see the action references are there. We would >> have to have 2 ref counters, one for filter, one for actions. >> What do you think? > >_If_ RTM_DELCHAIN does decrease the chain refcnt, then it is >broken: > ># tc chain add X... (refcnt == 1) ># tc action add ... goto chain X (refcnt==2) ># tc chain del X ... (refcnt== 1) ># tc chain del X ... (refcnt==0) > >RTM_DELCHAIN should just test if refcnt is 1, if it is, delete it, >otherwise return -EPERM. This is how we handle tc standalone >actions, see tcf_idr_delete_index(). > >Yes, you might need two refcnt's here.
Okay. Sounds good. I'm on it.
