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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:03:41 +0300 From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com> To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <roland@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Shlomo Pongratz <shlomop@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/bonding: correctly proxy slave neigh param setup ndo function On 4/4/2012 1:53 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > Or Gerlitz<ogerlitz@...lanox.com> wrote: > >> From: Shlomo Pongratz<shlomop@...lanox.com> >> >> The current implemenation was buggy for slaves who use ndo_neigh_setup, >> since the networking stack invokes the bonding device ndo entry (from >> neigh_params_alloc) before any devices are enslaved, and the bonding >> driver can't further delegate the call at that point in time. As a >> result when bonding IPoIB devices, the neigh_cleanup hasn't been called. >> >> Fix that by deferring the actual call into the slave ndo_neigh_setup > >from the time the bonding neigh_setup is called. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shlomo Pongratz<shlomop@...lanox.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c >> index b0a278d..2eed155 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c >> @@ -3707,17 +3707,52 @@ static void bond_set_multicast_list(struct net_device *bond_dev) >> read_unlock(&bond->lock); >> } >> >> -static int bond_neigh_setup(struct net_device *dev, struct neigh_parms *parms) >> +static int bond_neigh_init(struct neighbour *n) >> { >> - struct bonding *bond = netdev_priv(dev); >> + struct bonding *bond = netdev_priv(n->dev); >> struct slave *slave = bond->first_slave; >> + const struct net_device_ops *slave_ops; >> + struct neigh_parms parms; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!slave) >> + return 0; >> + >> + slave_ops = slave->dev->netdev_ops; >> + >> + if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup) >> + return 0; >> + >> + parms.neigh_setup = NULL; >> + parms.neigh_cleanup = NULL; >> + ret = slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup(slave->dev,&parms); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + >> + /* >> + * must bind here to the slave clenaup. Since when last slave is removed >> + * there will be no slave device to dereference in a bonding >> + * neigh_cleanup function that we have could add. >> + */ >> + n->parms->neigh_cleanup = parms.neigh_cleanup; > > I'd write this comment as: > > /* Assign slave's neigh_cleanup to neighbour in case cleanup is > * called after bond has been destroyed. Assumes that all slaves > * utilize the same neigh_cleanup (true at this writing as only user > * is ipoib). > */ > > I.e., this logic works only because there cannot currently be a > situation wherein two slaves have different neigh_cleanup functions > (including one slave with a neigh_cleanup, and another without). Jay, we do need that proxy-ing for the specific case of deleting the last slave, since in bond_release the address change and the event emission happen --after-- calling bond_detach_slave. Still, will pick your phrasing for the comment and replace "after bond has been destroyed" with "after last slave has been detached" > > + /* Does slave implement neigh_setup ? */ > + if (!parms.neigh_setup) > + return 0; > > I don't think this comment is necessary. okay, will remove Or. -- 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