Re: [PATCH 2/2] Virtual ethernet device driver

[Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>]

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> +static int veth_newlink(struct net_device *dev,
>> +			 struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[])
>> +{
>> +	int err;
>> +	struct net_device *peer;
>> +	struct veth_priv *priv;
>> +	char ifname[IFNAMSIZ];
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * prepare the devices info
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	if (tb[IFLA_ADDRESS] == NULL)
>> +		random_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr);
>> +
>> +	if (data != NULL && data[VETH_INFO_PEER] != NULL) {
>> +		err = nla_parse_nested(tb, IFLA_INFO_MAX,
>> +				data[VETH_INFO_PEER], ifla_policy);
>> +		if (err < 0)
>> +			return err;
>> +	}
> 
> 
> Not having a peer should be an error, no?

No. That's the intention - if the user doesn't specify "peer" in the
command line then two _identical_ devices are created. Of course, if
he specifies one name - there'll be a collision, but one can say
"my_own_veth_number_%d" and everything will be ok. Or just use the 
default name provided. E.g. "ip link add type veth" will send a packet
with data[VETH_INFO_PEER} == NULL, but this is OK! User just wants a 
default tunnel and he will get it :)

Does this answer your second comment below?

>> +
>> +	if (tb[IFLA_IFNAME])
>> +		nla_strlcpy(ifname, tb[IFLA_IFNAME], IFNAMSIZ);
>> +	else
>> +		snprintf(ifname, IFNAMSIZ, DRV_NAME "%%d");
> 
> 
> Does this work? The other device is not registered at this time, so I
> think the allocated names could clash ..
> 
> If it does work you could also perform name allocation in the
> rtnl_create_link function.
> 
> 
>> +
>> +	peer = rtnl_create_link(ifname, &veth_link_ops, tb);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(peer))
>> +		return PTR_ERR(peer);
>> +
>> +	if (tb[IFLA_ADDRESS] == NULL)
>> +		random_ether_addr(peer->dev_addr);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * register devices
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	err = register_netdevice(peer);
>> +	if (err < 0)
>> +		goto err_register_peer;
>> +
>> +	err = register_netdevice(dev);
>> +	if (err < 0)
>> +		goto err_register_dev;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * tie the deviced together
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	priv = netdev_priv(dev);
>> +	priv->dev = dev;
>> +	priv->peer = peer;
>> +	list_add(&priv->list, &veth_list);
>> +
>> +	priv = netdev_priv(peer);
>> +	priv->dev = peer;
>> +	priv->peer = dev;
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&priv->list);
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +err_register_dev:
>> +	unregister_netdevice(peer);
>> +	return err;
>> +
>> +err_register_peer:
>> +	free_netdev(peer);
>> +	return err;
>> +}
> 
>> +static __exit void veth_exit(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct veth_priv *priv, *next;
>> +
>> +	rtnl_lock();
>> +	__rtnl_link_unregister(&veth_link_ops);
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(priv, next, &veth_list, list)
>> +		veth_dellink(priv->dev);
>> +	rtnl_unlock();
> 
> 
> Devices are unregistered automatically through the dellink function,
> rtnl_link_unregister(..) is enough.

OK. This looks like a minor and not-significant comment, so
do I need to resend the patch or David is OK to take it and
I will send an incremental one?

Thanks,
Pavel