| Message ID | 1358153708-9099-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:55:08AM CET, amwang@redhat.com wrote: >From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> > >This patch fixes the following warning: > >[ 72.013864] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (4955) >[ 72.017758] Pid: 668, comm: netpoll-prep-v6 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc1+ #474 >[ 72.019582] Call Trace: >[ 72.020295] [<ffffffff8176653d>] netdev_master_upper_dev_get+0x35/0x58 >[ 72.022545] [<ffffffff81784edd>] netpoll_setup+0x61/0x340 >[ 72.024846] [<ffffffff815d837e>] store_enabled+0x82/0xc3 >[ 72.027466] [<ffffffff815d7e51>] netconsole_target_attr_store+0x35/0x37 >[ 72.029348] [<ffffffff811c3479>] configfs_write_file+0xe2/0x10c >[ 72.030959] [<ffffffff8115d239>] vfs_write+0xaf/0xf6 >[ 72.032359] [<ffffffff81978a05>] ? sysret_check+0x22/0x5d >[ 72.033824] [<ffffffff8115d453>] sys_write+0x5c/0x84 >[ 72.035328] [<ffffffff819789d9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > >by holding the rtnl_lock. And as we just want test if the device >has any upper device, so I think netdev_has_any_upper_dev() is enough. > >Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> >Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> >Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> > >--- >diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c >index 9f05067..dd28cdd 100644 >--- a/net/core/netpoll.c >+++ b/net/core/netpoll.c >@@ -1055,7 +1055,9 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) > return -ENODEV; > } > >- if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(ndev)) { >+ rtnl_lock(); >+ if (netdev_has_any_upper_dev(ndev)) { This would prevent from using dev with for example vlan dev attached to it. Is it desirable? I suppose not. Also I think in this situation, netdev_master_upper_dev_get_rcu() would be probably better to use. Not sure though. >+ rtnl_unlock(); > np_err(np, "%s is a slave device, aborting\n", np->dev_name); > err = -EBUSY; > goto put; >@@ -1066,7 +1068,6 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) > > np_info(np, "device %s not up yet, forcing it\n", np->dev_name); > >- rtnl_lock(); > err = dev_open(ndev); > rtnl_unlock(); > >@@ -1094,7 +1095,8 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) > np_notice(np, "carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds\n"); > msleep(4000); > } >- } >+ } else >+ rtnl_unlock(); > > if (!np->local_ip.ip) { > if (!np->ipv6) { -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 10:15 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:55:08AM CET, amwang@redhat.com wrote: > >From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> > > > >This patch fixes the following warning: > > > >[ 72.013864] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (4955) > >[ 72.017758] Pid: 668, comm: netpoll-prep-v6 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc1+ #474 > >[ 72.019582] Call Trace: > >[ 72.020295] [<ffffffff8176653d>] netdev_master_upper_dev_get+0x35/0x58 > >[ 72.022545] [<ffffffff81784edd>] netpoll_setup+0x61/0x340 > >[ 72.024846] [<ffffffff815d837e>] store_enabled+0x82/0xc3 > >[ 72.027466] [<ffffffff815d7e51>] netconsole_target_attr_store+0x35/0x37 > >[ 72.029348] [<ffffffff811c3479>] configfs_write_file+0xe2/0x10c > >[ 72.030959] [<ffffffff8115d239>] vfs_write+0xaf/0xf6 > >[ 72.032359] [<ffffffff81978a05>] ? sysret_check+0x22/0x5d > >[ 72.033824] [<ffffffff8115d453>] sys_write+0x5c/0x84 > >[ 72.035328] [<ffffffff819789d9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > >by holding the rtnl_lock. And as we just want test if the device > >has any upper device, so I think netdev_has_any_upper_dev() is enough. > > > >Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> > >Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > >Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> > > > >--- > >diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c > >index 9f05067..dd28cdd 100644 > >--- a/net/core/netpoll.c > >+++ b/net/core/netpoll.c > >@@ -1055,7 +1055,9 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) > > return -ENODEV; > > } > > > >- if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(ndev)) { > >+ rtnl_lock(); > >+ if (netdev_has_any_upper_dev(ndev)) { > > > This would prevent from using dev with for example vlan dev attached to > it. Is it desirable? I suppose not. No, it should not. I didn't notice netdev_has_any_upper_dev() could prevent the device under vlan, I will keep netdev_master_upper_dev_get(). > > Also I think in this situation, netdev_master_upper_dev_get_rcu() would > be probably better to use. Not sure though. > Yes, as we only read it. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c index 9f05067..dd28cdd 100644 --- a/net/core/netpoll.c +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c @@ -1055,7 +1055,9 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) return -ENODEV; } - if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(ndev)) { + rtnl_lock(); + if (netdev_has_any_upper_dev(ndev)) { + rtnl_unlock(); np_err(np, "%s is a slave device, aborting\n", np->dev_name); err = -EBUSY; goto put; @@ -1066,7 +1068,6 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) np_info(np, "device %s not up yet, forcing it\n", np->dev_name); - rtnl_lock(); err = dev_open(ndev); rtnl_unlock(); @@ -1094,7 +1095,8 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np) np_notice(np, "carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds\n"); msleep(4000); } - } + } else + rtnl_unlock(); if (!np->local_ip.ip) { if (!np->ipv6) {