From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv4/IPv6 sysctl unregistration deadlock
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:55:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090226085531.5d124843@nehalam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A4F0D7.20304@trash.net>
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:18:47 +0100
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 06:23:33AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >>> An easy fix would be to keep track of whether sysctl unregistration
> >>> is in progress in IPv4/IPv6 and ignore new requests from that point
> >>> on. Its not very elegant though, so I was wondering whether anyone
> >>> has a better suggestion.
> >>
> >> We could make the unregistration asynchronous and invoke a callback
> >> when it's done. Then we can simply hold a net_device refcount and
> >> relinquish it in the callback
> >
> > That sounds simple enough. I'll see if I can come up with a patch, thanks.
>
> Unfortunately its more complicated than I thought because of
> device renames, where the sysctl pointer is reused after
> unregistration and the rename/unregistration/re-registration
> should be atomic. Deferring unregistration means we can't perform
> the new registration immediately unless we allow multiple
> registrations for a single device to be active simulaneously,
> which introduces a whole new set of problems.
>
> Simply ignoring the request during unregistration doesn't seem
> so bad after all, the main problem is that it intoduces a different
> race on renames where a write to the "forwarding" file returns
> success, but the change doesn't take effect. We could return
> -ENOENT, but that seems a bit strange after open() returned success.
> Maybe -EBUSY, although I would prefer to make this transparent
> to userspace.
>
> Another alternative would be to simply not take the RTNL in
> the sysctl handler since we're already taking dev_base_lock
> before performing any forwaring changes. But in case of IPv4
> we need it for disabling LRO.
>
> I think I'm stuck. Will rethink it after some coffee :)
Will the following help? It punts the problem back out to VFS which
will restart.
--- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c 2009-02-26 08:51:09.000000000 -0800
+++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c 2009-02-26 08:54:08.000000000 -0800
@@ -493,15 +493,17 @@ static void addrconf_forward_change(stru
read_unlock(&dev_base_lock);
}
-static void addrconf_fixup_forwarding(struct ctl_table *table, int *p, int old)
+static int addrconf_fixup_forwarding(struct ctl_table *table, int *p, int old)
{
struct net *net;
net = (struct net *)table->extra2;
if (p == &net->ipv6.devconf_dflt->forwarding)
- return;
+ return 0;
+
+ if (!rtnl_trylock())
+ return -ERESTARTSYS;
- rtnl_lock();
if (p == &net->ipv6.devconf_all->forwarding) {
__s32 newf = net->ipv6.devconf_all->forwarding;
net->ipv6.devconf_dflt->forwarding = newf;
@@ -512,6 +514,7 @@ static void addrconf_fixup_forwarding(st
if (*p)
rt6_purge_dflt_routers(net);
+ return 1;
}
#endif
@@ -3977,7 +3980,7 @@ int addrconf_sysctl_forward(ctl_table *c
ret = proc_dointvec(ctl, write, filp, buffer, lenp, ppos);
if (write)
- addrconf_fixup_forwarding(ctl, valp, val);
+ ret = addrconf_fixup_forwarding(ctl, valp, val);
return ret;
}
@@ -4013,8 +4016,7 @@ static int addrconf_sysctl_forward_strat
}
*valp = new;
- addrconf_fixup_forwarding(table, valp, val);
- return 1;
+ return addrconf_fixup_forwarding(table, valp, val);
}
static struct addrconf_sysctl_table
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-26 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-25 5:23 IPv4/IPv6 sysctl unregistration deadlock Patrick McHardy
2009-02-25 6:19 ` Herbert Xu
2009-02-25 6:23 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-25 7:18 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-25 8:43 ` Herbert Xu
2009-02-26 6:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-26 6:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-26 6:22 ` Herbert Xu
2009-02-26 7:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-26 16:49 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-26 19:01 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-26 20:24 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-27 0:59 ` Herbert Xu
2009-02-27 1:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-27 18:26 ` Ben Greear
2009-02-27 18:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-02 11:07 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 11:21 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 22:11 ` Ben Greear
2009-03-02 22:20 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 22:47 ` David Miller
2009-03-02 23:03 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-03 8:48 ` David Miller
2009-03-08 3:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-26 16:55 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
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=20090226085531.5d124843@nehalam \
--to=shemminger@vyatta.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).