From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv4/IPv6 sysctl unregistration deadlock
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:18:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49A4F0D7.20304@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A4E3F8.4050406@trash.net>
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 :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-25 7:18 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 [this message]
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
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=49A4F0D7.20304@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--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).