[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM0PR05MB48660149DA366D89137CADB4D1FE0@AM0PR05MB4866.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:08:52 +0000
From: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
Raed Salem <raeds@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [net 5/5] net/mlx5: Clear LAG notifier pointer after unregister
Hi Eli,
> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 5:18 PM
> To: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>
> From: Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>
>
> After returning from unregister_netdevice_notifier_dev_net(), set the
> notifier_call field to NULL so successive call to mlx5_lag_add() will function as
> expected.
>
> Fixes: 7907f23adc18 ("net/mlx5: Implement RoCE LAG feature")
> Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Raed Salem <raeds@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag.c
> index 8e19f6ab8393..93052b07c76c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag.c
> @@ -615,8 +615,10 @@ void mlx5_lag_remove(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> break;
>
> if (i == MLX5_MAX_PORTS) {
> - if (ldev->nb.notifier_call)
> + if (ldev->nb.notifier_call) {
> unregister_netdevice_notifier_net(&init_net, &ldev-
> >nb);
> + ldev->nb.notifier_call = NULL;
> + }
> mlx5_lag_mp_cleanup(ldev);
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ldev->bond_work);
> mlx5_lag_dev_free(ldev);
> --
> 2.24.1
I have noticed this and applied this local change to avoid below call trace and reported it to Leon few days back in different discussion.
But I fail to justify that this was/is the right fix. To me it seems to hide another bug.
Can you please explain the flow why mlx5_lag_remove() will be called twice with i = 2 because of which null check is needed to avoid unregister_notifier second time?
RIP: 0010:__list_del_entry_valid+0x7c/0xa0
unregister_netdevice_notifier_dev_net+0x1f/0x70
mlx5_lag_remove+0x61/0xf0 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_detach_netdev+0x24/0x50 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_detach+0x36/0x40 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_remove+0x48/0x60 [mlx5_core]
mlx5_remove_device+0xb0/0xc0 [mlx5_core]
mlx5_unregister_interface+0x39/0x90 [mlx5_core]
cleanup+0x5/0xdd1 [mlx5_core]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists