netdev - Re: [patch net-next v4 5/7] bridge: defer switchdev fdb del call in fdb_del_external

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]

Message-ID: <561C7B1B.90406@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:31:39 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
	Elad Raz <eladr@...lanox.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 5/7] bridge: defer switchdev fdb del call
 in fdb_del_external_learn

On 15-10-12 08:28 PM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>>
>> Since spinlock is held here, defer the switchdev operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> ---
>>  net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 5 ++++-
>>  net/bridge/br_if.c  | 3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
>> index f5e7da0..c88bd8e 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
>> @@ -134,7 +134,10 @@ static void fdb_del_hw_addr(struct net_bridge *br, const unsigned char *addr)
>>  static void fdb_del_external_learn(struct net_bridge_fdb_entry *f)
>>  {
>>         struct switchdev_obj_port_fdb fdb = {
>> -               .obj.id = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_FDB,
>> +               .obj = {
>> +                       .id = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_FDB,
>> +                       .flags = SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER,
>> +               },
>>                 .vid = f->vlan_id,
>>         };
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> index 934cae9..09147cb 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>>  #include <net/sock.h>
>>  #include <linux/if_vlan.h>
>> +#include <net/switchdev.h>
>>
>>  #include "br_private.h"
>>
>> @@ -249,6 +250,8 @@ static void del_nbp(struct net_bridge_port *p)
>>         list_del_rcu(&p->list);
>>
>>         br_fdb_delete_by_port(br, p, 0, 1);
>> +       switchdev_flush_deferred();
>> +
> 
> This potentially flushes other (valid) work on the deferred queue not
> related to FDB del.
> 
> I wonder if this flush step is necessary at all?  The work we deferred
> to delete the FDB entry can still happen after the port has been
> removed (del_nbp).  If the port driver/device find the FDB entry, then
> delete it, otherwise ignore it.
> 

Just the first thing that springs to mind reading this comment is,

  - del gets deffered
  - add fdb
  - del runs

Is there an issue here? Sorry I'll do a more thorough review now just
thought I would toss it out there before I forget.

Thanks,
John
--
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