[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201202170359.19330bda@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:03:59 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
Cc: <roopa@...dia.com>, <nikolay@...dia.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: Fix a warning when del bridge sysfs
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:01:14 +0800 Wang Hai wrote:
> If adding bridge sysfs fails, br->ifobj will be NULL, there is no
> need to delete its non-existent sysfs when deleting the bridge device,
> otherwise, it will cause a warning. So, when br->ifobj == NULL,
> directly return can fix this bug.
>
> br_sysfs_addbr: can't create group bridge4/bridge
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> sysfs group 'bridge' not found for kobject 'bridge4'
> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 9004 at fs/sysfs/group.c:279 sysfs_remove_group fs/sysfs/group.c:279 [inline]
> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 9004 at fs/sysfs/group.c:279 sysfs_remove_group+0x153/0x1b0 fs/sysfs/group.c:270
> Modules linked in: iptable_nat
> ...
> Call Trace:
> br_dev_delete+0x112/0x190 net/bridge/br_if.c:384
> br_dev_newlink net/bridge/br_netlink.c:1381 [inline]
> br_dev_newlink+0xdb/0x100 net/bridge/br_netlink.c:1362
> __rtnl_newlink+0xe11/0x13f0 net/core/rtnetlink.c:3441
> rtnl_newlink+0x64/0xa0 net/core/rtnetlink.c:3500
> rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x385/0x980 net/core/rtnetlink.c:5562
> netlink_rcv_skb+0x134/0x3d0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2494
> netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1304 [inline]
> netlink_unicast+0x4a0/0x6a0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1330
> netlink_sendmsg+0x793/0xc80 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1919
> sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:651 [inline]
> sock_sendmsg+0x139/0x170 net/socket.c:671
> ____sys_sendmsg+0x658/0x7d0 net/socket.c:2353
> ___sys_sendmsg+0xf8/0x170 net/socket.c:2407
> __sys_sendmsg+0xd3/0x190 net/socket.c:2440
> do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
Nik, is this the way you want to handle this?
Should the notifier not fail if sysfs files cannot be created?
Currently br_sysfs_addbr() returns an int but the only caller
ignores it.
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c b/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
> index 7db06e3f642a..1e9cbf31d904 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
> @@ -991,6 +991,9 @@ void br_sysfs_delbr(struct net_device *dev)
> struct kobject *kobj = &dev->dev.kobj;
> struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
>
> + if (!br->ifobj)
> + return;
> +
> kobject_put(br->ifobj);
> sysfs_remove_bin_file(kobj, &bridge_forward);
> sysfs_remove_group(kobj, &bridge_group);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists