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

[Wang Chen <wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Patrick McHardy said the following on 2008-6-17 21:06:
> 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.
> 

Yes.
Maybe we should ask the authors about why they let driver to
change the dev->flags.
Fox example, about 3c527.
Alan,
Can you explain why do_mc32_set_multicast_list() change flag
to IFF_PROMISC when IFF_ALLMULTI is set?

Jeff,
Any suggestion about this?
netdevice uses promiscuity as refcnt, and if driver set IFF_PROMISC
but don't change promiscuity will break the refcnt.