Re: [PATCH 3/3] netdevice: order of synchronization of IFF_PROMISC and IFF_ALLMULTI

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Wang Chen wrote:
> Patrick McHardy said the following on 2008-6-16 18:03:
>> Wang Chen wrote:
>>> And about the comment, I copy it from dev_change_flags() and think
>>> it seems suit for here.
>>> Did I misunderstand this comment?
>> I think it refers to broken behaviour by drivers that set
>> IFF_PROMISC themselves when asked to disable multicast
>> filtering by setting IFF_ALLMULTI. This would cause the
>> test for changed flags in dev_set_promiscuity to return zero
>> and not program the device for promiscous mode properly.
>>
> 
> Do you mean things like that in do_mc32_set_multicast_list()?

Yes.

>> There are a few examples of this in the tree. But calling
>> dev_set_promiscuity() before dev_set_allmulti() only helps
>> in the dev_change_flags() case since its the only function
>> that might change both flags at once. In all other cases it
>> depends on the caller.
>>
>> So for the dev_change_flags() case VLAN already uses the
>> "proper" ordering, the other cases might be broken with
>> or without your patch.
>>
> 
> Is there any other case might be broken?

If that ordering is really required, yes:

- ip link set dev eth0 allmulticast on

<sets allmulticast *and* promisous with broken driver>

- ip link set dev eth0 promisc on

<no change>

So the only thing fixed by this workaround is of both are
enabled in a single command - something that doesn't even
make much sense since promisc will receive all multicast
frames anyway.

>> I'd suggest to fix the drivers instead, perhaps start by
>> adding a warning to dev_change_flags() that is triggered
>> by the driver changing the flags itself.
>>
> 
> In some driver's code of *_set_multicast_list(), IFF_PROMISC
> will be set if IFF_ALLMULTI is set.
> And there is comment about the necessity for setting IFF_PROMISC.
> /*
>  *	We must make the kernel realise we had to move
>  *	into promisc mode or we start all out war on
>  *	the cable. If it was a promisc request the
>  *	flag is already set. If not we assert it.
>  */
> So, I doubt about fixing the drivers.


I have no idea what this comment is trying to say. Drivers
shouldn't change dev->flags.