[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530349CA.9070209@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:53:46 +0100
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
Thomas Glanzmann <thomas@...nzmann.de>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: Fix RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/rtnetlink.c
for 802.3ad mode
On 02/18/2014 12:49 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 12:25 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> The problem was introduced by the commit 1d3ee88ae0d
>> (bonding: add netlink attributes to slave link dev).
>> The bond_set_active_slave() and bond_set_backup_slave()
>> will use rtmsg_ifinfo to send slave's states, so these
>> two functions should be called in RTNL.
>>
>> In 802.3ad mode, acquiring RTNL for the __enable_port and
>> __disable_port cases is difficult, as those calls generally
>> already hold the state machine lock, and cannot unconditionally
>> call rtnl_lock because either they already hold RTNL (for calls
>> via bond_3ad_unbind_slave) or due to the potential for deadlock
>> with bond_3ad_adapter_speed_changed, bond_3ad_adapter_duplex_changed,
>> bond_3ad_link_change, or bond_3ad_update_lacp_rate. All four of
>> those are called with RTNL held, and acquire the state machine lock
>> second. The calling contexts for __enable_port and __disable_port
>> already hold the state machine lock, and may or may not need RTNL.
>>
>> According to the Jay's opinion, I don't think it is a problem that
>> the slave don't send notify message synchronously when the status
>> changed, normally the state machine is running every 100 ms, send
>> the notify message at the end of the state machine if the slave's
>> state changed should be better.
>>
>> I fix the problem through these steps:
>>
>> 1). add a new function bond_set_slave_state() which could change
>> the slave's state and call rtmsg_ifinfo() according to the input
>> parameters called notify.
>>
>> 2). Add a new slave parameter which called should_notify, if the slave's state
>> changed and don't notify yet, the parameter will be set to 1, and then if
>> the slave's state changed again, the param will be set to 0, it indicate that
>> the slave's state has been restored, no need to notify any one.
>>
>> 3). the __enable_port and __disable_port should not call rtmsg_ifinfo
>> in the state machine lock, any change in the state of slave could
>> set a flag in the slave, it will indicated that an rtmsg_ifinfo
>> should be called at the end of the state machine.
>>
>> Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>> ---
> Hi Ding,
> I think there's a possible race condition which could lead to inconsistent
> state because you set slave->should_notify to 0 under RTNL but
> __disable_port can update it without RTNL e.g. can be called via
> bond_3ad_state_machine_handler -> ad_agg_selection_logic so in theory (I
> haven't tested it) they can execute concurrently. This is not a big deal
> though, but it would make this kind of message unreliable.
>
> Nik
>
Ah, missed where it gets updated, never mind this comment, it's fine.
--
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