On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:13:40PM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 16:03 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: 
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:58:11AM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 11:00 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: 
> > > > The Cnic driver handles lots of ulp operations in its netdevice event 
> > > > hanlder.
> > > > To do this, it accesses the ulp_ops array, which is an rcu protected 
> > > > array.
> > > > However, some ulp operations (like bnx2fc_indicate_netevent) try to lock
> > > > mutexes, which might sleep (somthing that you can't do while holding 
> > > > rcu read
> > > > side locks if you've configured non-preemptive rcu.
> > > > 
> > > > Fix this by changing the dereference method.  All accesses to the 
> > > > ulp_ops array
> > > > for a cnic dev are modified under the protection of the rtnl lock, and 
> > > > so we can
> > > > safely just use rcu_dereference_rtnl, and remove the rcu_read_lock here
> > > 
> > > Because the bnx2fc function can sleep, we need a more complete fix to
> > > prevent the ulp_ops from going away when the device is unregistered.
> > > synchronize_rcu() won't be able to protect it.  I'll post the patch
> > > later today.  Thanks.
> > > 
> > The device can't be unregistered while we hold rtnl, can it?  Since we hold 
> > it
> > in this path it seems safe to me, even if we sleep, or am I missing 
> > something?
> > Neil
> > 
> The netdev cannot be unregistered of course, but I am talking about
> bnx2fc unregistering the cnic device.  For example if someone does
> fcoeadm -d or bnx2fc gets unloaded.

I don't think the latter can happen, as creating an fcoe transport places a hold
on the bnx2fc module (see bnx2fc_create), and the former operation (fcoeadm -d)
will block in bnx2fc_destroy as it requires holding the rtnl_lock, which will
already be held by the netevent notifer, and confirmed by the
rcu_dereference_rtnl in my patch.

I really think we're safe here
Neil

> > 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
fcoe-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/fcoe-devel

Reply via email to