[ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: fix vport-netdev unregister

[Jesse Gross]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast at plumgrid.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast at plumgrid.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
>>>> However, the check dev->reg_state in netdev_destroy() looks racy to
>>>> me, as it could already be in NETREG_UNREGISTERED even if we already
>>>> processed this device.
>>>
>>> you mean that netdev_destroy() will see reg_state == netreg_unregistered,
>>> while dp_device_event() didn't see reg_state == netreg_unregistering yet?
>>> or dp_device_event() saw it, proceeded to do unlink and
>>> netdev_destroy() ran in parallel?
>>> well, that's why reg_state == netreg_unregistering check in netdev_destroy()
>>> is done with rtnl_lock() held.
>>> reg_state cannot go into netreg_unregistered state skipping
>>> netreg_unregistering and notifier.
>>> therefore I don't think it's racy.
>>>
>>> In ovs_dp_notify_wq() you're checking for both unregistering and
>>> unregistered and that makes
>>> sense, since workq can run after unregistering notifier called and
>>> netdev_run_todo()
>>> already changed the state to unregistered.
>>> But here it's not the case.
>>
>> ovs_dp_notify_wq() calls ovs_dp_detach_port(), which indirectly calls
>> netdev_destroy() so it seems like it actually is the same case to me.
>
> yes. makes sense.
> how about:
> -       if (netdev_vport->dev->reg_state != NETREG_UNREGISTERING)
> +       if (netdev_vport->dev->priv_flags & IFF_OVS_DATAPATH)

Yes, this seems safer. Is the check for NETREG_UNREGISTERING in
dp_device_event() still needed given that we are checking the event?

> ovs_netdev_destroy_dev() name instead ovs_netdev_unlink_dev() name?

How about detach_dev?