From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz•org>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash•net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft•net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Virtual ethernet device driver
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:36:42 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46962E6A.5020906@openvz.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46962AC5.2030005@trash.net>
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static int veth_newlink(struct net_device *dev,
>>>> + struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[])
>>>> +{
>>>> + int err;
>>>> + struct net_device *peer;
>>>> + struct veth_priv *priv;
>>>> + char ifname[IFNAMSIZ];
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * prepare the devices info
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> + if (tb[IFLA_ADDRESS] == NULL)
>>>> + random_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (data != NULL && data[VETH_INFO_PEER] != NULL) {
>>>> + err = nla_parse_nested(tb, IFLA_INFO_MAX,
>>>> + data[VETH_INFO_PEER], ifla_policy);
>>>> + if (err < 0)
>>>> + return err;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Not having a peer should be an error, no?
>>
>> No. That's the intention - if the user doesn't specify "peer" in the
>> command line then two _identical_ devices are created. Of course, if
>> he specifies one name - there'll be a collision, but one can say
>> "my_own_veth_number_%d" and everything will be ok. Or just use the
>> default name provided. E.g. "ip link add type veth" will send a packet
>> with data[VETH_INFO_PEER} == NULL, but this is OK! User just wants a
>> default tunnel and he will get it :)
>
> I see.
>
>> Does this answer your second comment below?
>
>
> No, to get unique names the sequence has to be:
>
> dev_alloc_name
> register_netdevice
> dev_alloc_name
> register_netdevice
>
> But you have:
>
> dev_alloc_name
> dev_alloc_name (<- might allocate same name as first call)
> register_netdevice
> register_netdevice
Oops :) You're right. That's the problem. I was carried away by
testing the "peer" options and checking for names rather than
"veth%d" to work...
By the way, that will create some problems. You see, your patches
imply that the register_netdevice() will be called at the very end
of the ->newlink callback. Otherwise, the error path of any code
following the registering will have to call unregister_netdevice()
which will BUG() in free_netdev() in rtnl_newlink() - the device
state will be neither UNINITIALIZED nor UNREGISTERED :(
>>>> +static __exit void veth_exit(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct veth_priv *priv, *next;
>>>> +
>>>> + rtnl_lock();
>>>> + __rtnl_link_unregister(&veth_link_ops);
>>>> +
>>>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(priv, next, &veth_list, list)
>>>> + veth_dellink(priv->dev);
>>>> + rtnl_unlock();
>>>
>>> Devices are unregistered automatically through the dellink function,
>>> rtnl_link_unregister(..) is enough.
>>
>> OK. This looks like a minor and not-significant comment, so
>> do I need to resend the patch or David is OK to take it and
>> I will send an incremental one?
>
>
> An incremental patch for this is fine I guess, your code is correct,
> its merely a simplification.
>
Thanks,
Pavel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-12 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-12 9:13 [PATCH 0/2] Virtual ethernet device (v3) Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 9:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] Introduce the generic rtnl_create_link() Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 9:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] Virtual ethernet device driver Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 12:31 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-12 13:14 ` Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 13:21 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-12 13:36 ` Pavel Emelianov [this message]
2007-07-12 13:44 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-12 13:58 ` Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 13:17 ` Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 13:24 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-16 9:10 ` Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 13:51 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-12 14:01 ` Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 14:10 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-16 9:16 ` Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-16 13:13 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-12 9:21 ` [PATCH 0/2] Module for ip utility to support veth device (v.3) Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 9:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] Intruduce iplink_parse() routine Pavel Emelianov
2007-07-12 9:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] Module for ip utility to support veth device Pavel Emelianov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-07-19 9:24 [PATCH] Virtual ethernet device (v.4) Pavel Emelyanov
2007-07-19 9:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] Virtual ethernet device driver Pavel Emelyanov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46962E6A.5020906@openvz.org \
--to=xemul@openvz$(echo .)org \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox