Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes: > On 5/13/26 2:02 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Sashiko reports that it is technically possible that we got the device >>> reference, but by the time we're linking it to the OVS datapath, it >>> may be already in the process of being deleted. In this case if the >>> notifier wins the race for RTNL, it will see that the device is not >>> yet in the OVS datapath (ovs_netdev_get_vport() will fail in the >>> dp_device_event()) and will do nothing. Then the ovs_netdev_link() >>> will take the RTNL and link the unregistering device to OVS datapath. >>> >>> Eventually, netdev_wait_allrefs_any() will re-broadcast the event and >>> the device will be properly detached, but it will take at least a >>> second before that happens, so it's not something we should rely on. >>> >>> Let's avoid linking the non-registered device in the first place. >>> >>> Note: As per documentation, RTNL doesn't protect the reg_state, but >>> it actually does for all the state transitions we care about here, >>> so it should not be necessary to use READ_ONCE or taking the instance >>> lock. We can still do that, but we have a few more places even in >>> this file where the reg_state is accessed without those while under >>> RTNL, and many more places like this across the kernel code, so it >>> might make more sense to change all of them in a more centralized >>> fashion in the future, if necessary. >>> >>> Fixes: ccb1352e76cf ("net: Add Open vSwitch kernel components.") >>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c b/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c >>> index c42642075685d..de90d0541e172 100644 >>> --- a/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c >>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c >>> @@ -83,6 +83,11 @@ struct vport *ovs_netdev_link(struct vport *vport, bool >>> tunnel) >>> } >>> >>> rtnl_lock(); >> >> As noted in your commit, this shouldn't cause any kind of issues, since >> the next netdev_wait_allrefs_any() will make sure things look correct to >> the users again. >> >> That said, I agree this is good to do to prevent some confusion going to >> the users. I wonder if it makes sense to add a comment here noting >> that. Otherwise, if I were just freshly reading through the code it >> wouldn't follow (all the places where ovs_netdev_link get called are in >> the 'create' path). >> >> WDYT? > > I'm not sure if the comment is necessary. We're not creating a device here > and it seems clear enough that we shouldn't be linking devices that are not > registered, even if there are no races. But I could add something like: > > /* Do not link devices that are not registered to avoid a potential > * race with the NETDEV_UNREGISTER notification in dp_device_event(). > */ > > WDYT?
That comment makes sense to me. > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
