[Devel] Re: [PATCH] netns: remove useless synchronize_net()

[Eric W. Biederman]

Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at free.fr> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at free.fr> writes:
>>   
>>> Hmm, at the first glance I would say it is useless but perhaps there is a
> trick
>>> here I do not understand.
>>> Eric, is there any particular reason to call synchronize_net before exiting
> the
>>> dev_change_net_namespace function ?
>>>     
>>
>> I haven't thought about that part of the code path in detail in a long
>> time.  dev_change_net_namespace() is a condensed version of
>> register_netdevice() unregister_netdevice().  With the calls down into
>> the driver removed.
>>
>> On a side note.  It looks like we now cope with:
>> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_REGISTER, dev); failing in
>> register_netdev, but no one updated dev_change_net_namespace to handle
>> the change, looks like a real pain to cope with.
>>
>> As for the synchronize_net, and in response to the original
>> comment as best as I can tell we do have things being being
>> deleted that are at least candidates for synchronize_net.
>>
>> dev_addr_discard(dev);
>> dev_net_set(dev, net);
>> netdev_unregister_kobject(dev);
>>
>> We very much do access dev->net with only rcu protection.
>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>> It looks like I originally took the second synchronize_net from what
>> became rollback_registered, which happens just before we start freeing
>> the netdevice.
>>
>> The nastiest case that I can envision is if we happen to receive a
>> packet (on another cpu) for the network device that we are moving,
>> just after it has registered in the new network namespace.  If we read
>> the old network namespace and forward it up the network stack in that
>> context I can imagine it being a recipe for all kinds of strange
>> non-deterministic behavior.
>>   
>
> The code does:
>
>    dev_close
>       dev_deactive
>          synchronize_rcu
>    synchronize_net
>    ...
>    dev_shutdown
>    ...
>    synchronize_net
>
> The network device can no longer receive packets after dev_deactive, no ?
> The first synchronize_net will wait for the outstanding packets to be delivered
> to the upper layer and we change the nd_net field after.
> Your scenario makes sense for the first synchronize_net but I am not sure that
> can happen if we remove the second synchronize_net.

Good point.  Visibility is key.  What can find us after we
call list_netdevice() ?  Aren't there some pieces of code that
do for_each_netdevice under the rcu lock?

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers