netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 03/11] net: switchdev: remove the transaction structure from port object notifiers

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: <20210107111822.icmzu4lvs5ygsuef@skbuf>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 13:18:22 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, petrm@...dia.com
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 03/11] net: switchdev: remove the transaction
 structure from port object notifiers

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 12:38:35PM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> +Petr
> 
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 01:17:20AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >  static int mlxsw_sp_port_obj_add(struct net_device *dev,
> >  				 const struct switchdev_obj *obj,
> > -				 struct switchdev_trans *trans,
> >  				 struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> >  {
> >  	struct mlxsw_sp_port *mlxsw_sp_port = netdev_priv(dev);
> >  	const struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *vlan;
> > +	struct switchdev_trans trans;
> >  	int err = 0;
> >  
> >  	switch (obj->id) {
> >  	case SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_VLAN:
> >  		vlan = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_VLAN(obj);
> > -		err = mlxsw_sp_port_vlans_add(mlxsw_sp_port, vlan, trans,
> > +
> 
> Got the regression results. The call to mlxsw_sp_span_respin() should be
> placed here because it needs to be triggered regardless of the return
> value of mlxsw_sp_port_vlans_add().

So before, mlxsw_sp_span_respin() was called right in between the
prepare phase and the commit phase, regardless of the error value of
mlxsw_sp_port_vlans_add. How does that work, I assume that
mlxsw_sp_span_respin_work gets to run after the commit phase because it
serializes using rtnl_lock()? Then why did it matter enough to schedule
it between the prepare and commit phase in the first place?
And what is there to do in mlxsw_sp_span_respin_work when
mlxsw_sp_port_vlans_add returns -EOPNOTSUPP, -EBUSY, -EINVAL, -EEXIST or
-ENOMEM?