netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/4] C/R: Basic support for network namespaces and devices (v3)

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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:30:54 -0800
From:	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	containers@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] C/R: Basic support for network namespaces and devices (v3)

SH> rw_lockt is effectively a spinlock, so I don't think you can sleep
SH> here.

Yep, thanks.

>> +	for_each_netdev(net, dev) {
>> +		if (!dev->netdev_ops->ndo_checkpoint)
>> +			continue;

SH> Won't the checkpoint_obj() call checkpoint_netdev(), which will return
SH> -EINVAL if ndo_checkpoint is not defined? 

Yes, but this isn't the only place that checkpoint_netdev() could be
called (dev->peer in the veth example) so I figured that it would be
best to test it there too before I blindly call a NULL function
pointer.  It should never happen, but seemed prudent.

SH> But here you skip the checkpoint_obj() call (which seems wrong to
SH> me).  Which do you want to have happen?

What the code is doing is "skipping any interfaces in a netns that
don't have a checkpoint operation" but would fail if you called
checkpoint_obj() on a veth peer that happened to be missing that
operation for some reason.

I suppose you could argue that we should fail in the netns case
instead, which will make this a bit messier for things we get for
"free" in a new netns, like sit0.  If preferable, I can just add an
ndo_checkpoint() to sit0 as well and simply checkpoint the presence of
it until later when we decide if we care about it.

SH> By hard-coding veth stuff into generic-sounding functions in
SH> net/checkpoint_dev.c you seem to be assuming that only veth will
SH> ever be supported for checkpoint/restart?  what about macvlan?
SH> (Not to mention that eventually we intend to support moving
SH> physical nics into containers)

No, that's not what I'm assuming.  The only interface type I need to
control with RTNL is veth right now.  So, if you'd prefer a
single-case of:

  if (type == veth)
    do_veth_message();
  else
    fail();

to record the goal of having more types later I'll happily add that
unreachable code to the patch :)

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms@...ibm.com
--
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