From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 03/12] net: sched: introduce chain object to uapi
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 09:40:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU8EQ+GDPROek7f12oJJeXB5Jp2sUaBSKP4hPBSLNN1dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180723072312.4153-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180723072312.4153-4-jiri@resnulli.us>
 <CAM_iQpU41g_aSd7wbRk5r+hbVRdoDYnLWANjOJtZYgf4qfx0_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM_iQpXxOOAw06tGiCmkWrMkU4xoNO8cwTP349vU8AGj--OXVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180725064645.GA2164@nanopsycho>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
        john.hurley@netronome.com, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        mlxsw@mellanox.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:36758 "EHLO
        mail-pl0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1728653AbeGYRvN (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:51:13 -0400
Received: by mail-pl0-f49.google.com with SMTP id e11-v6so3519203plb.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 09:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180725064645.GA2164@nanopsycho>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>
> Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:20:08AM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
> >So, you only send out notification when the last refcnt is gone.
> >
> >If the chain that is being deleted by a user is still used by an action,
> >you return 0 or -EPERM?
>
> 0 and the chain stays there until the action is removed. Hmm, do you thing
> that -EPERM should be returned in that case? The thing is, we have to
> flush the chain in order to see the action references are there. We would
> have to have 2 ref counters, one for filter, one for actions.
> What do you think?

_If_ RTM_DELCHAIN does decrease the chain refcnt, then it is
broken:

# tc chain add X... (refcnt == 1)
# tc action add ... goto chain X (refcnt==2)
# tc chain del X ... (refcnt== 1)
# tc chain del X ... (refcnt==0)

RTM_DELCHAIN should just test if refcnt is 1, if it is, delete it,
otherwise return -EPERM. This is how we handle tc standalone
actions, see tcf_idr_delete_index().

Yes, you might need two refcnt's here.