From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (1/5) replay netdev notifier events on registration
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:16:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040115101617.0782fcca.shemminger@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040115004255.62dc8b95.davem@redhat.com>
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:42:55 -0800
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:44:16 -0800
> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> > Possible problems:
> > qeth: s390 driver -- bug, code is narcissistic and thinks it only gets
> > notified about it's own devices.
> >
> > atm/mpc: only looks for "lec" devices, don't know if they could exist
> > before it starts.
>
> These are both hard errors and potential bogus pointer derefences, they both
> assume the type of dev->priv. The atm/mpc case has a netdev->name==NULL
> test which is a funny relic :-)
>
> Both these cases ought to be fixed. However, the atm/mpc case poses an issue,
> how to identify "my" devices? We've established that the textual name is
> basically arbitrary and not a reliable key. Currently I see only two
> possible reliable solutions, but I like neither of them:
>
> 1) Device driver doing this needs to keep own list of net devices it
> has created. Then it's notifiier code does something like:
>
> if (!find_in_mpoa_devlist(dev))
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
This is done other places, but your right it scales poorly
> 2) Add a type cookie or similar to the generic netdev, only devices
> which need to identify themselves in these generic kind of cases
> add identifier values there, so currently that would be MPOA and
> QETH, then the code goes:
>
> if (dev->type_cookie == NETDEV_TYPE_MPOA)
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
faster, but uglier.
> But as stated I think both of these ideas absolutely stink.
Well, we could switch to an object language with RTTI ;-(
> ... wait...
>
> Ok, I have an idea, consider this. We add a netdev->notifier()
> method. We create a new routine to net/core/dev.c:
>
> static void run_netdev_notifiers(int event, struct net_device *dev)
> {
> notifier_call_chain(&netdev_chain, event, dev);
>
> if (dev->notifier)
> dev->notifier(dev, event);
> }
>
> Then replace all the notifier_call_chain(&netdev_chain, ...) calls
> in net/core/dev.c with invocations of run_netdev_notifiers().
>
> I believe we can (and thus should) add an ASSERT_RTNL() to this new
> run_netdev_notifiers() functions, although I'm not %100 sure.
>
> What do you think Stephen?
Feeling stupid this morning, how wold this help? Would device set
dev->notifier and not register for other notifications?
Rather than a single notifier why not add a dev->notify_chain and
do:
notifier_call_chain(&netdev_chain, event, dev);
notifier_call_chain(dev->notify_chain, event, dev);
But the whole programming model of responding to callbacks seems bassackwards
in these cases, because the device can process the same events (up/down)
on the front side (open/close) rather than getting callbacks. At least in the
qeth case it seems like a messed up design.
> > Unrelated problems:
> > ddp: registers for notifier before it is initialized
>
> Just moving it down to the end of atalk_init() should fix this?
I'll test a patch for it.
> Actually, I don't really see any potential problem here.
>
> > ipmr: no locking for add/delete
>
> Not a problem, RTNL semaphore is held.
>
> > ipfwadm: no module owner on /proc interface
> Please elaborate. I don't see the ipfwadm netdev event notifier
> messing with procfs stuff, or is this happen at a level or two of
> indirection somewhere else?
Just never looked there before... patch coming.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-15 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-13 18:58 [PATCH] (1/5) replay netdev notifier events on registration Stephen Hemminger
2004-01-14 0:36 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-15 0:40 ` [PATCH] decnet initialization race Stephen Hemminger
2004-01-15 8:45 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-15 0:43 ` [PATH] atm/clip device discovery on init not needed Stephen Hemminger
2004-01-15 8:44 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-15 22:59 ` Stephen Hemminger
2004-01-15 23:00 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-15 0:44 ` [PATCH] (1/5) replay netdev notifier events on registration Stephen Hemminger
2004-01-15 8:42 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-15 18:16 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2004-01-15 19:51 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-16 3:19 ` chas williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040115101617.0782fcca.shemminger@osdl.org \
--to=shemminger@osdl.org \
--cc=chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).