netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5] rtnetlink: Support fine-grained netdevice bulk deletion

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: <20211208164544.64792d51@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 16:45:44 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Lahav Schlesinger <lschlesinger@...venets.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5] rtnetlink: Support fine-grained netdevice
 bulk deletion

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:18:48 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/8/21 5:04 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> I think marking the dev's and then using a delete loop is going to be
> >> the better approach - avoid the sort and duplicate problem. I use that
> >> approach for nexthop deletes:
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/net/ipv4/nexthop.c#n1849
> >>
> >> Find a hole in net_device struct in an area used only for control path
> >> and add 'bool grp_delete' (or a 1-bit hole). Mark the devices on pass
> >> and delete them on another.  
> > 
> > If we want to keep state in the netdev itself we can probably piggy
> > back on dev->unreg_list. It should be initialized to empty and not
> > touched unless device goes thru unregister.
> 
> isn't that used when the delink function calls unregister_netdevice_queue?

Sure but all the validation is before we start calling delink, so
doesn't matter?

list to_kill, queued;

for_each_attr(nest) {
	...

	dev = get_by_index(nla_get_s32(..));
	if (!dev)
		goto cleanup;
	if (!list_empty(&dev->unreg_list))
		goto cleanup;
	...

	list_add(&to_kill, &dev->unreg_list);
}

for_each_entry_safe(to_kill) {
	list_del_init(&dev->unreg_list);
	->dellink(dev, queued);
}

unreg_many(queued);

return

cleanup:
	for_each_entry_safe(to_kill) {
		list_del_init(&dev->unreg_list);
	}

No?