netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] net/bonding: ADD IPoIB support for the bonding driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070731140436.GA16015@mellanox.co.il>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:04:36 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@....mellanox.co.il>
To:	Moni Shoua <monisonlists@...il.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, fubar@...ibm.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] net/bonding: ADD IPoIB support for	the bonding
	driver

> Quoting Moni Shoua <monisonlists@...il.com>:
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] net/bonding: ADD IPoIB support for?the bonding driver
> 
> Roland Dreier wrote:
> >  > 1. When bonding enslaves an IPoIB device the bonding neighbor holds a 
> >  > reference to a cleanup function in the IPoIB drives. This makes it unsafe to 
> >  > unload the IPoIB module if there are bonding neighbors in the air. So, to 
> >  > avoid this race one must unload bonding before unloading IPoIB. 
> > 
> > I think we really want to resolve this somehow.  Getting an oops by
> > doing "modprobe -r ipoib" isn't that friendly.
> > 
> You are right and we want to resolve that.
> One way is to clean the neigh destructor function from all IPoIB neighs.
> The other way is to prevent ipoib unload if device is a slave or is referenced from 
> somewhere else.
> 
> I guess I would like an advice here.

I had this idea:


Maybe we could use hard_header_cache/header_cache_update methods instead of
neighbour cleanup calls.

To do this, it is possible that we'll have to switch from storing pointers
inside the neighbour to keeping an index there, but I expect the
performance impact to be minimal.

As a result, bonding would not have to copy pointers into ipoib module
and module removal would get fixed.

-- 
MST
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html