Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
	mkl@pengutronix.de, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, dev@kicherer.org
Subject: Re: [BUG/Q] can_pernet_exit() leaves devices on dead net
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:19:29 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d97f5629-6de5-0d24-8a48-01a612a39bc9@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9f3585bb-4cf9-b0e1-3069-37fbae2ce54b@hartkopp.net>

On 06.03.2018 13:26, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> - DaveM
> 
> Hi Kirill,
> 
> On 03/05/2018 04:22 PM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the explanation, and module unloading should be nice. Just to clarify,
>> I worry not about rules, but about netdevices.
>>
>> 	unshare -n ip link add type vcan
>>
>> This command creates net ns, adds vcan there and exits. Then net ns is destroyed.
>> Since vcan has rtnl_link_ops, it unregistered by default_device_exit_batch().
>> Real can devices are moved to init_net in default_device_exit(), as they don't
>> have rtnl_link_ops set.
> 
> In fact most of the real CAN drivers have rtnl_link_ops:
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/can/dev.c#L1162
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/can/dev.c#L1225
> 
> Just slcan.c which is something like slip.c is missing these feature.
> 
> AFAIK real CAN netdevices are created in init_net at system startup, and you
> can move them to a netns later.
> 
> When we already have rtnl_link_ops in the real CAN drivers - what happens to
> them when the namespace is destroyed? Are they still moved to init_net, or do
> we need to add some default handler in the current rtnl_link_ops setup?

They are unregistered in default_device_exit_batch():

        list_for_each_entry(net, net_list, exit_list) {
                for_each_netdev_reverse(net, dev) {
                        if (dev->rtnl_link_ops && dev->rtnl_link_ops->dellink)
                                dev->rtnl_link_ops->dellink(dev, &dev_kill_list);
                        else
                                unregister_netdevice_queue(dev, &dev_kill_list);
                }
        }
        unregister_netdevice_many(&dev_kill_list);

So that, my question in the start of the topic is about that. If we unregister them,
what devices we're going to meet in can_pernet_exit()?

Also, can devices not having rtnl_link_ops are moved into init_net in default_device_exit():

for_each_netdev_safe(net, dev, aux) {
                if (dev->features & NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL)
                        continue;

                /* Leave virtual devices for the generic cleanup */
                if (dev->rtnl_link_ops)
                        continue;

                err = dev_change_net_namespace(dev, &init_net, fb_name);
}
 
>> So, for_each_netdev_rcu() cycle in can_pernet_exit() should be useless (there are
>> no can devices in the list of net's devices). This looks so for me, please say
>> what devices are there if my assumption is wrong.
> 
> See above?
> 
>>>> Since can_pernet_ops is pernet subsys, it's executed after default_device_exit()
>>>> from default_device_ops pernet device, as devices exit methods are executed first
>>>> (see net/core/net_namespace.c).
>>>
>>> Hm - a device exit fires the NETDEV_UNREGISTER notifier which removes the
>>> user-generated filters (e.g. in raw_notifier() in net/can/raw.c).
>>> Finally the can_dev_rcv_lists structure is free'd in af_can.c.
>>>
>>> Marc Kleine-Budde recently proposed a patch to create the can_dev_rcv_lists at
>>> netdevice creation time (-> the space is allocated by alloc_netdev() and
>>> removed by free_netdev()). This would remove the handling (allocate & free) of
>>> ml_priv by af_can.c. Would this rework fix the described issue?
>>
>> Could you please give me a link to the patches? I can't find them in patchwork.
> 
> There was a patchset of 14 patches from Marc where some of the refactoring &
> renaming already made it into mainline - but the patches to move the
> can_dev_rcv_lists data structure into the network device space have not been
> pushed:
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=150169588319315&w=2
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&r=1&b=201708&w=2
> 
> This patch & documentation describes Marc's proposed idea best:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=150169589619340&w=2

Yes, this one looks good:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=150169589119335&w=2

Regards,
Kirill

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-16  9:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-01 15:53 [BUG/Q] can_pernet_exit() leaves devices on dead net Kirill Tkhai
2018-03-05 13:59 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2018-03-05 15:22   ` Kirill Tkhai
2018-03-06 10:26     ` Oliver Hartkopp
2018-03-16  9:19       ` Kirill Tkhai [this message]
2018-04-02 15:28         ` Oliver Hartkopp
2018-04-02 15:36           ` Kirill Tkhai

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=d97f5629-6de5-0d24-8a48-01a612a39bc9@virtuozzo.com \
    --to=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=dev@kicherer.org \
    --cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
    /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