On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:42:55 -0800
"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:44:16 -0800
> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Possible problems:
> > qeth: s390 driver -- bug, code is narcissistic and thinks it only gets
> > notified about it's own devices.
> > atm/mpc: only looks for "lec" devices, don't know if they could exist
> > before it starts.
> These are both hard errors and potential bogus pointer derefences, they both
> assume the type of dev->priv. The atm/mpc case has a netdev->name==NULL
> test which is a funny relic :-)
> Both these cases ought to be fixed. However, the atm/mpc case poses an issue,
> how to identify "my" devices? We've established that the textual name is
> basically arbitrary and not a reliable key. Currently I see only two
> possible reliable solutions, but I like neither of them:
> 1) Device driver doing this needs to keep own list of net devices it
> has created. Then it's notifiier code does something like:
> if (!find_in_mpoa_devlist(dev))
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
This is done other places, but your right it scales poorly
> 2) Add a type cookie or similar to the generic netdev, only devices
> which need to identify themselves in these generic kind of cases
> add identifier values there, so currently that would be MPOA and
> QETH, then the code goes:
> if (dev->type_cookie == NETDEV_TYPE_MPOA)
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
faster, but uglier.
> But as stated I think both of these ideas absolutely stink.
Well, we could switch to an object language with RTTI ;-(
> ... wait...
> Ok, I have an idea, consider this. We add a netdev->notifier()
> method. We create a new routine to net/core/dev.c:
> static void run_netdev_notifiers(int event, struct net_device *dev)
> notifier_call_chain(&netdev_chain, event, dev);
> if (dev->notifier)
> dev->notifier(dev, event);
> Then replace all the notifier_call_chain(&netdev_chain, ...) calls
> in net/core/dev.c with invocations of run_netdev_notifiers().
> I believe we can (and thus should) add an ASSERT_RTNL() to this new
> run_netdev_notifiers() functions, although I'm not %100 sure.
> What do you think Stephen?
Feeling stupid this morning, how wold this help? Would device set
dev->notifier and not register for other notifications?
Rather than a single notifier why not add a dev->notify_chain and
notifier_call_chain(&netdev_chain, event, dev);
notifier_call_chain(dev->notify_chain, event, dev);
But the whole programming model of responding to callbacks seems bassackwards
in these cases, because the device can process the same events (up/down)
on the front side (open/close) rather than getting callbacks. At least in the
qeth case it seems like a messed up design.
> > Unrelated problems:
> > ddp: registers for notifier before it is initialized
> Just moving it down to the end of atalk_init() should fix this?
I'll test a patch for it.
> Actually, I don't really see any potential problem here.
> > ipmr: no locking for add/delete
> Not a problem, RTNL semaphore is held.
> > ipfwadm: no module owner on /proc interface
> Please elaborate. I don't see the ipfwadm netdev event notifier
> messing with procfs stuff, or is this happen at a level or two of
> indirection somewhere else?
Just never looked there before... patch coming.