| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110214090133.GB2746@psychotron.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:01:34 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To: Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: make dev->master general
Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:48:44AM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>Le 12/02/2011 17:48, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>>dev->master is now tightly connected to bonding driver. This patch makes
>>this pointer more general and ready to be used by others.
>>
>> - netdev_set_master() - bond specifics moved to new function
>> netdev_set_bond_master()
>> - introduced netif_is_bond_slave() to check if device is a bonding slave
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko<jpirko@...hat.com>
>
>Hi Jiri,
>
>Even if DaveM already applied your patch, I'm not comfortable with it.
>
>What is the rational behind it? Do you have anything in mind to use
>the now "more general" master field of net_device?
>
>Of course, I won't advocate for every fields having only a single
>possible usage, but, using master for several different things might
>jeopardize our ability to share an interface between several logical
>interface systems:
>
>Due to the current usage of the rx_handler field in net_device, the
>code suggest that an interface cannot be part of a bridge and of a
>macvlan at the same time. Even if bridge provide an hook for ebtables
>to ignore an skb and allow other to get it, macvlan cannot be
>registered on the same lower interface as a bridge, because
>rx_handler can only hold a single value.
>
>By giving master a more general meaning, I think we might face a
>similar problem. It might disallow an interface to be enslaved to
>bonding and part of another logical interface at the same time, if
>such logical interface also use the master field.
That is true. I think that it makes no sense to have iface enslaved in
bond and bridge at the same time. Do you have a scenario where it makes
sense?
>
>It doesn't mean I don't support the general idea, but I would like to
>clearly understand the possible unexpected impact: do we want to stop
>interfaces to be "enslaved" to several logical interface at the same
>time?
>
>>---
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.c | 3 +-
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_cm.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 10 +++---
>> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c | 3 +-
>> include/linux/netdevice.h | 7 +++++
>> net/core/dev.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 6 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.c
>>index 3b4ec32..3d7f366 100644
>>--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.c
>>+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.c
>>@@ -153,7 +153,8 @@ static int nes_inetaddr_event(struct notifier_block *notifier,
>> nesdev, nesdev->netdev[0]->name);
>> netdev = nesdev->netdev[0];
>> nesvnic = netdev_priv(netdev);
>>- is_bonded = (netdev->master == event_netdev);
>>+ is_bonded = netif_is_bond_slave(netdev)&&
>>+ (netdev->master == event_netdev);
>> if ((netdev == event_netdev) || is_bonded) {
>> if (nesvnic->rdma_enabled == 0) {
>> nes_debug(NES_DBG_NETDEV, "Returning without processing event for %s since"
>>diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_cm.c
>>index 009ec81..ec3aa11 100644
>>--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_cm.c
>>+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_cm.c
>>@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ static int nes_addr_resolve_neigh(struct nes_vnic *nesvnic, u32 dst_ip, int arpi
>> return rc;
>> }
>>
>>- if (nesvnic->netdev->master)
>>+ if (netif_is_bond_slave(netdev))
>> netdev = nesvnic->netdev->master;
>> else
>> netdev = nesvnic->netdev;
>>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>index 1df9f0e..9f87787 100644
>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>@@ -1594,9 +1594,9 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev)
>> }
>> }
>>
>>- res = netdev_set_master(slave_dev, bond_dev);
>>+ res = netdev_set_bond_master(slave_dev, bond_dev);
>> if (res) {
>>- pr_debug("Error %d calling netdev_set_master\n", res);
>>+ pr_debug("Error %d calling netdev_set_bond_master\n", res);
>> goto err_restore_mac;
>> }
>> /* open the slave since the application closed it */
>>@@ -1812,7 +1812,7 @@ err_close:
>> dev_close(slave_dev);
>>
>> err_unset_master:
>>- netdev_set_master(slave_dev, NULL);
>>+ netdev_set_bond_master(slave_dev, NULL);
>>
>> err_restore_mac:
>> if (!bond->params.fail_over_mac) {
>>@@ -1992,7 +1992,7 @@ int bond_release(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev)
>> netif_addr_unlock_bh(bond_dev);
>> }
>>
>>- netdev_set_master(slave_dev, NULL);
>>+ netdev_set_bond_master(slave_dev, NULL);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_POLL_CONTROLLER
>> read_lock_bh(&bond->lock);
>>@@ -2114,7 +2114,7 @@ static int bond_release_all(struct net_device *bond_dev)
>> netif_addr_unlock_bh(bond_dev);
>> }
>>
>>- netdev_set_master(slave_dev, NULL);
>>+ netdev_set_bond_master(slave_dev, NULL);
>>
>> /* close slave before restoring its mac address */
>> dev_close(slave_dev);
>>diff --git a/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c b/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c
>>index 7ea94b5..862804f 100644
>>--- a/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c
>>+++ b/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c
>>@@ -186,9 +186,10 @@ static struct net_device *get_iff_from_mac(struct adapter *adapter,
>> dev = NULL;
>> if (grp)
>> dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan);
>>- } else
>>+ } else if (netif_is_bond_slave(dev)) {
>> while (dev->master)
>> dev = dev->master;
>
>The while() here suggests that nesting bonding is possible. This is
>not true (even if not enforced yet). And even if it was true, then
>you needed to use netif_is_bond_slave(dev) inside the while() loop,
>to be consistent.
>
>>+ }
>> return dev;
>> }
>> }
>>diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>index 5a5baea..5a42b10 100644
>>--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>@@ -2377,6 +2377,8 @@ extern int netdev_max_backlog;
>> extern int netdev_tstamp_prequeue;
>> extern int weight_p;
>> extern int netdev_set_master(struct net_device *dev, struct net_device *master);
>>+extern int netdev_set_bond_master(struct net_device *dev,
>>+ struct net_device *master);
>> extern int skb_checksum_help(struct sk_buff *skb);
>> extern struct sk_buff *skb_gso_segment(struct sk_buff *skb, u32 features);
>> #ifdef CONFIG_BUG
>>@@ -2437,6 +2439,11 @@ static inline void netif_set_gso_max_size(struct net_device *dev,
>> dev->gso_max_size = size;
>> }
>>
>>+static inline int netif_is_bond_slave(struct net_device *dev)
>>+{
>>+ return dev->flags& IFF_SLAVE&& dev->priv_flags& IFF_BONDING;
>>+}
>>+
>
>Does this means you also consider IFF_SLAVE as a "more general" flag
>now? Wasn't IFF_SLAVE a sufficient evidence of the interface being
>enslaved to a bonding interface, before?
>
>> extern struct pernet_operations __net_initdata loopback_net_ops;
>>
>> static inline int dev_ethtool_get_settings(struct net_device *dev,
>>diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>index d874fd1..a413276 100644
>>--- a/net/core/dev.c
>>+++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>@@ -3146,7 +3146,6 @@ static int __netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> struct packet_type *ptype, *pt_prev;
>> rx_handler_func_t *rx_handler;
>> struct net_device *orig_dev;
>>- struct net_device *master;
>> struct net_device *null_or_orig;
>> struct net_device *orig_or_bond;
>> int ret = NET_RX_DROP;
>>@@ -3173,15 +3172,19 @@ static int __netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> */
>> null_or_orig = NULL;
>> orig_dev = skb->dev;
>>- master = ACCESS_ONCE(orig_dev->master);
>> if (skb->deliver_no_wcard)
>> null_or_orig = orig_dev;
>>- else if (master) {
>>- if (__skb_bond_should_drop(skb, master)) {
>>- skb->deliver_no_wcard = 1;
>>- null_or_orig = orig_dev; /* deliver only exact match */
>>- } else
>>- skb->dev = master;
>>+ else if (netif_is_bond_slave(orig_dev)) {
>>+ struct net_device *bond_master = ACCESS_ONCE(orig_dev->master);
>>+
>>+ if (likely(bond_master)) {
>>+ if (__skb_bond_should_drop(skb, bond_master)) {
>>+ skb->deliver_no_wcard = 1;
>>+ /* deliver only exact match */
>>+ null_or_orig = orig_dev;
>>+ } else
>>+ skb->dev = bond_master;
>>+ }
>
>I think we need an "else" here. If orig_dev->master is NULL, while
>netif_is_bond_slave(orig_dev) is TRUE, we apparently face an
>unexpected situation and we should at least issue a warning.
>
>> }
>>
>> __this_cpu_inc(softnet_data.processed);
>>@@ -4346,15 +4349,14 @@ static int __init dev_proc_init(void)
>>
>>
>> /**
>>- * netdev_set_master - set up master/slave pair
>>+ * netdev_set_master - set up master pointer
>> * @slave: slave device
>> * @master: new master device
>> *
>> * Changes the master device of the slave. Pass %NULL to break the
>> * bonding. The caller must hold the RTNL semaphore. On a failure
>> * a negative errno code is returned. On success the reference counts
>>- * are adjusted, %RTM_NEWLINK is sent to the routing socket and the
>>- * function returns zero.
>>+ * are adjusted and the function returns zero.
>> */
>> int netdev_set_master(struct net_device *slave, struct net_device *master)
>> {
>>@@ -4374,6 +4376,29 @@ int netdev_set_master(struct net_device *slave, struct net_device *master)
>> synchronize_net();
>> dev_put(old);
>> }
>>+ return 0;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_set_master);
>>+
>>+/**
>>+ * netdev_set_bond_master - set up bonding master/slave pair
>>+ * @slave: slave device
>>+ * @master: new master device
>>+ *
>>+ * Changes the master device of the slave. Pass %NULL to break the
>>+ * bonding. The caller must hold the RTNL semaphore. On a failure
>>+ * a negative errno code is returned. On success %RTM_NEWLINK is sent
>>+ * to the routing socket and the function returns zero.
>>+ */
>>+int netdev_set_bond_master(struct net_device *slave, struct net_device *master)
>>+{
>>+ int err;
>>+
>>+ ASSERT_RTNL();
>>+
>>+ err = netdev_set_master(slave, master);
>>+ if (err)
>>+ return err;
>> if (master)
>> slave->flags |= IFF_SLAVE;
>> else
>>@@ -4382,7 +4407,7 @@ int netdev_set_master(struct net_device *slave, struct net_device *master)
>> rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, slave, IFF_SLAVE);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>-EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_set_master);
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_set_bond_master);
>>
>> static void dev_change_rx_flags(struct net_device *dev, int flags)
>> {
>
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists