Re: [PATCH] netns: remove useless synchronize_net()

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>]

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>   
>> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> Hmm, at the first glance I would say it is useless but perhaps there is a
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>> trick
>>>     
>>>       
>>>>> here I do not understand.
>>>>> Eric, is there any particular reason to call synchronize_net before exiting
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>> the
>>>     
>>>       
>>>>> dev_change_net_namespace function ?
>>>>>     
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> I haven't thought about that part of the code path in detail in a long
>>>> time.  dev_change_net_namespace() is a condensed version of
>>>> register_netdevice() unregister_netdevice().  With the calls down into
>>>> the driver removed.
>>>>
>>>> On a side note.  It looks like we now cope with:
>>>> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_REGISTER, dev); failing in
>>>> register_netdev, but no one updated dev_change_net_namespace to handle
>>>> the change, looks like a real pain to cope with.
>>>>
>>>> As for the synchronize_net, and in response to the original
>>>> comment as best as I can tell we do have things being being
>>>> deleted that are at least candidates for synchronize_net.
>>>>
>>>> dev_addr_discard(dev);
>>>> dev_net_set(dev, net);
>>>> netdev_unregister_kobject(dev);
>>>>
>>>> We very much do access dev->net with only rcu protection.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like I originally took the second synchronize_net from what
>>>> became rollback_registered, which happens just before we start freeing
>>>> the netdevice.
>>>>
>>>> The nastiest case that I can envision is if we happen to receive a
>>>> packet (on another cpu) for the network device that we are moving,
>>>> just after it has registered in the new network namespace.  If we read
>>>> the old network namespace and forward it up the network stack in that
>>>> context I can imagine it being a recipe for all kinds of strange
>>>> non-deterministic behavior.
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> The code does:
>>>
>>>    dev_close
>>>       dev_deactive
>>>          synchronize_rcu
>>>    synchronize_net
>>>    ...
>>>    dev_shutdown
>>>    ...
>>>    synchronize_net
>>>
>>> The network device can no longer receive packets after dev_deactive, no ?
>>> The first synchronize_net will wait for the outstanding packets to be delivered
>>> to the upper layer and we change the nd_net field after.
>>> Your scenario makes sense for the first synchronize_net but I am not sure that
>>> can happen if we remove the second synchronize_net.
>>>     
>>>       
>> Good point.  Visibility is key.  What can find us after we
>> call list_netdevice() ?  Aren't there some pieces of code that
>> do for_each_netdevice under the rcu lock?
>>   
>>     
> AFAIR, no. for_each_netdev is protected by rtnl_lock.
>   

Nicolas,

At the first glance it looks like the removing of the second 
synchronize_net is fine, but before posting the patch do you mind to 
wait a little ?
I would like to do some tests with your patch to check if we don't 
missed something.

Thanks
  -- Daniel