[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51EC8003.3040500@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:42:43 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [3/4] bonding: the calling of bond->slave_cnt need protection
On 2013/7/20 18:47, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 03:23:57PM +0800, dingtianhong wrote:
>> The bonding_store_mode has rtnl protection, so no need to get read lock
>> for bond->slave_cnt, but the bonding_store_fail_over_mac need to protect
>> the bond->slave_cnt, so add read_lock().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> index dc36a3d..d01a189 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> @@ -504,11 +504,14 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_fail_over_mac(struct device *d,
>> int new_value;
>> struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
>>
>> + read_lock(&bond->lock);
>> if (bond->slave_cnt != 0) {
>> pr_err("%s: Can't alter fail_over_mac with slaves in bond.\n",
>> bond->dev->name);
>> + read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>> return -EPERM;
>> }
>> + read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>
> Maybe it's Saturday, but I really don't see *any* point in this locking.
>
> I think you've meant that we need the rtnl protection while reading
> slave_cnt AND updating the .fail_over_mac, so that in between we won't add
> new slaves with outdated params.
yes, as you said, the rtnl lock is enough here, but I think rtnl lock is bigger than
a readlock, so think about the performance, i choose the readlock to protect slave_cnt.
>
> Something like this (untested):
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> index dc36a3d..8a5a6a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> @@ -501,20 +501,25 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_fail_over_mac(struct device *d,
> struct device_attribute *attr,
> const char *buf, size_t count)
> {
> - int new_value;
> + int new_value, ret = count;
> struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
>
> + if (!rtnl_trylock())
> + return restart_syscall();
> +
> if (bond->slave_cnt != 0) {
> pr_err("%s: Can't alter fail_over_mac with slaves in bond.\n",
> bond->dev->name);
> - return -EPERM;
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> new_value = bond_parse_parm(buf, fail_over_mac_tbl);
> if (new_value < 0) {
> pr_err("%s: Ignoring invalid fail_over_mac value %s.\n",
> bond->dev->name, buf);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> bond->params.fail_over_mac = new_value;
> @@ -522,7 +527,9 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_fail_over_mac(struct device *d,
> bond->dev->name, fail_over_mac_tbl[new_value].modename,
> new_value);
>
> - return count;
> +out:
> + rtnl_unlock();
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static DEVICE_ATTR(fail_over_mac, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
>>
>> new_value = bond_parse_parm(buf, fail_over_mac_tbl);
>> if (new_value < 0) {
>
> .
>
--
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