From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: allow notifier subscribers to forbid
 device from closing
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:53:38 -0700
Message-ID: <20110831085338.04c96e70@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net>
References: <1314803731-1222-1-git-send-email-jpirko@redhat.com>
	<1314804352.2741.4.camel@bwh-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	davem@davemloft.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:46321 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755787Ab1HaPx2 (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:53:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1314804352.2741.4.camel@bwh-desktop>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:25:51 +0100
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 17:15 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > In some situations, like when the device is used as slave device in
> > bond/br/etc it is not nice if someone closes the device. This allows
> > it's masters to forbid this closure.
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> [...]
> > @@ -1269,9 +1282,12 @@ static int dev_close_many(struct list_head *head)
> >  	struct net_device *dev, *tmp;
> >  	LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
> >  
> > -	list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, head, unreg_list)
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, head, unreg_list) {
> >  		if (!(dev->flags & IFF_UP))
> >  			list_move(&dev->unreg_list, &tmp_list);
> > +		else
> > +			__dev_pre_close(dev);
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	__dev_close_many(head);
> 
> The return value is ignored here.
> 
> And this is called from dev_close(), where you are adding the
> notification as well.  So the notifier will usually be called twice.
> 
> [...]
> > @@ -1397,6 +1418,7 @@ rollback:
> >  				break;
> >  
> >  			if (dev->flags & IFF_UP) {
> > +				nb->notifier_call(nb, NETDEV_PRE_DOWN, dev);
> >  				nb->notifier_call(nb, NETDEV_GOING_DOWN, dev);
> >  				nb->notifier_call(nb, NETDEV_DOWN, dev);
> >  			}
> [...]
> 
> The return value has to be ignored here.  Not sure it makes any sense to
> call the notifier at all.
> 
> Ben.
> 

Also we need to allow rmmod'ing a network device even it is
part of a bridge and that implicitly
calls close.