On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 02:28:36PM +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2025, at 13:59, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> > The openvswitch teardown code will immediately call
> > ovs_netdev_detach_dev() in response to a NETDEV_UNREGISTER notification.
> > It will then start the dp_notify_work workqueue, which will later end up
> > calling the vport destroy() callback. This callback takes the RTNL to do
> > another ovs_netdev_detach_port(), which in this case is unnecessary.
> > This causes extra pressure on the RTNL, in some cases leading to
> > "unregister_netdevice: waiting for XX to become free" warnings on
> > teardown.
> >
> > We can straight-forwardly avoid the extra RTNL lock acquisition by
> > checking the device flags before taking the lock, and skip the locking
> > altogether if the IFF_OVS_DATAPATH flag has already been unset.
> >
> > Fixes: b07c26511e94 ("openvswitch: fix vport-netdev unregister")
> > Tested-by: Adrian Moreno <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c | 11 +++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c b/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c
> > index 91a11067e458..519f038526f9 100644
> > --- a/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c
> > +++ b/net/openvswitch/vport-netdev.c
> > @@ -160,10 +160,13 @@ void ovs_netdev_detach_dev(struct vport *vport)
> >
> > static void netdev_destroy(struct vport *vport)
> > {
> > - rtnl_lock();
> > - if (netif_is_ovs_port(vport->dev))
> > - ovs_netdev_detach_dev(vport);
> > - rtnl_unlock();
> > + if (netif_is_ovs_port(vport->dev)) {
>
> Hi Toke,
>
> Thanks for digging into this!
>
> The patch looks technically correct to me, but maybe we should add a comment
> here explaining why we can do it this way, i.e., why we can call
> netif_is_ovs_port() without the lock.
> For example:
>
> /* We can avoid taking the rtnl lock as the IFF_OVS_DATAPATH flag is
> set/cleared in either netdev_create()/netdev_destroy(), which are both called
> under the global ovs_lock(). */
>
> Additionally, I think the second netif_is_ovs_port() under the rtnl lock is
> not required due to the above.
In the case of netdevs being unregistered outside of OVS, the
ovs_dp_device_notifier gets called which then runs
"ovs_netdev_detach_dev" only under RTNL. Locking ovs_lock() in that
callback would be problematic since the rest of the OVS code assumes
ovs_lock is nested outside of RTNL.
So this could race with a ovs_vport_cmd_del AFAICS.
Adrián
>
> > + rtnl_lock();
> > + /* check again while holding the lock */
> > + if (netif_is_ovs_port(vport->dev))
> > + ovs_netdev_detach_dev(vport);
> > + rtnl_unlock();
> > + }
> >
> > call_rcu(&vport->rcu, vport_netdev_free);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.52.0
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
