[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZytH1CjCShr23AoC@penguin>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:41:24 +0200
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 7/7] rtnetlink: Register rtnl_dellink() and
rtnl_setlink() with RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_PERNET_WIP.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 06:24:32PM -0800, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> Currently, rtnl_setlink() and rtnl_dellink() cannot be fully converted
> to per-netns RTNL due to a lack of handling peer/lower/upper devices in
> different netns.
>
> For example, when we change a device in rtnl_setlink() and need to
> propagate that to its upper devices, we want to avoid acquiring all netns
> locks, for which we do not know the upper limit.
>
> The same situation happens when we remove a device.
>
> rtnl_dellink() could be transformed to remove a single device in the
> requested netns and delegate other devices to per-netns work, and
> rtnl_setlink() might be ?
>
> Until we come up with a better idea, let's use a new flag
> RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_PERNET_WIP for rtnl_dellink() and rtnl_setlink().
>
> This will unblock converting RTNL users where such devices are not related.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
> ---
> include/net/rtnetlink.h | 1 +
> net/core/rtnetlink.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists