Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] ppp: add rtnetlink support

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 02:56:17 +0200
Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr> wrote:

> PPP devices lack the ability to be customised at creation time. In
> particular they can't be created in a given netns or with a particular
> name. Moving or renaming the device after creation is possible, but
> creates undesirable transient effects on servers where PPP devices are
> constantly created and removed, as users connect and disconnect.
> Implementing rtnetlink support solves this problem.

Good to see PPP behave like other tunnels.

> The rtnetlink handlers implemented in this series are minimal, and can
> only replace the PPPIOCNEWUNIT ioctl. The rest of PPP ioctls remains
> necessary for any other operation on channels and units.
> It is perfectly to possible to mix PPP devices created by rtnl
> and by ioctl(PPPIOCNEWUNIT). Devices will behave in the same way,
> except for a few specific cases (as detailed in patch #6).

What blocks PPP from being fully netlink (use attributes),
and work with same API set independent of how device was created.
Special cases are nuisance and source of bugs.

> I'm sending the series only as RFC this time, because there are a few
> points I'm unsatisfied with.
> 
> First, I'm not fond of passing file descriptors as netlink attributes,
> as done with IFLA_PPP_DEV_FD (which is filled with a /dev/ppp fd). But
> given how PPP units work, we have to associate a /dev/ppp fd somehow.
> 
> More importantly, the locking constraints of PPP are quite problematic.
> The rtnetlink handler has to associate the new PPP unit with the
> /dev/ppp file descriptor passed as parameter. This requires holding the
> ppp_mutex (see e8e56ffd9d29 "ppp: ensure file->private_data can't be
> overridden"), while the rtnetlink callback is already protected by
> rtnl_lock(). Since other parts of the module take these locks in
> reverse order, most of this series deals with preparing the code for
> inverting the dependency between rtnl_lock and ppp_mutex. Some more
> work is needed on that part (see patch #4 for details), but I wanted
> to be sure that approach it worth it before spending some more time on
> it.

One other way to handle the locking is to use trylock. Yes it justs
pushs the problem back to userspace, but that is how lock reordering was
handled in sysfs.

> Other approach
> 
> I've considered another approach where no /dev/ppp file descriptor
> is associated to the PPP unit at creation time. This removes all the
> problems described above. The PPP interface that is created behaves
> mostly like a dummy device until it gets associated with a /dev/ppp
> file descriptor (using the PPPIOCATTACH ioctl).
> The problem here is that, AFAIK, we can't return the unit identifier of
> the new PPP device to the user space program having issued the
> RTM_NEWLINK message. This identifier is required for the
> ioctl(PPPIOCATTACH) call. Of course we could return such information
> in an RTM_GETLINK message, but the user would need to query the device
> name that was created. This would only work for users that can set the
> IFLA_IFNAME attribute in their original RTM_NEWLINK message.
> 
> 
> Patch series
> 
> Patches 1 to 3 prepare the code for inverting lock ordering between
> ppp_mutex and rtnl_lock. Patch #4 does the lock inversion.
> The actual infrastructure is implemented in patches #5 and #6.