On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 01:03:32PM -0800, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:02:48 -0800 Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/loopback.c b/drivers/net/loopback.c
> > > > > index a1c77cc00416..76dc92ac65a2 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/loopback.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/loopback.c
> > > > > @@ -219,6 +219,13 @@ static __net_init int loopback_net_init(struct
> > > > > net *net)
> > > > >
> > > > > BUG_ON(dev->ifindex != LOOPBACK_IFINDEX);
> > > > > net->loopback_dev = dev;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (sysctl_netdev_loopback_state) {
> > > > > + /* Bring loopback device UP */
> > > > > + rtnl_lock();
> > > > > + dev_open(dev, NULL);
> > > > > + rtnl_unlock();
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > The only concern I have here is that it breaks notification ordering.
> > > > Is there precedent for NETDEV_UP to be generated before all pernet ops
> > > > ->init was called?
> > > I'm not sure if any and didn't see any issues in our usage / tests.
> > > I'm not even sure anyone is watching/monitoring for lo status as such.
> >
> > Ido, David, how does this sound to you?
> >
> > I can't think of any particular case where bringing the device up (and
> > populating it's addresses) before per netns init is finished could be
> > problematic. But if this is going to make kernel coding harder the
> > minor convenience of the knob is probably not worth it.
>
> +Eric Dumazet
>
> I'm not sure why kernel coding should get harder, but happy to listen
> to the opinions.
Hi,
Sorry for the delay. Does not occur to me as a problematic change. I ran
various tests with 'sysctl -qw net.core.netdev_loopback_state=1' and a
debug config. Looks OK.
