netdev - Re: [rds-devel] [PATCH RFC RFC] rds: Use NETDEV_UNREGISTER in rds_tcp_dev_event() (then kill NETDEV_UNREGISTER

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]

Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:26:00 -0400
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [rds-devel] [PATCH RFC RFC] rds: Use NETDEV_UNREGISTER in
 rds_tcp_dev_event() (then kill NETDEV_UNREGISTER_FINAL)

On (03/17/18 10:15), Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> To solve the scaling problem why not just have a well-defined 
> callback to modules when devices are quiesced, instead of 
> overloading the pernet_device registration in this obscure way?

I thought about this a bit, and maybe I missed your original point-
today we are able to do all the needed cleanup for rds-tcp when
we unload the module, even though network activity has not quiesced,
and there is no reason we cannot use the same code for netns cleanup
as well. I think this is what you were trying to ask, when you 
said "why do you need to know that loopback is down?"
I'm sorry I  missed that, I will re-examine the code and get back to
you- it should be possible to just do one registration and 
cleanup rds-state and avoid the hack of registering twice

(saw your most recent long mail- sorry- both v1 and v2 are hacks)

I'm on the road at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this.

Thanks
--Sowmini