Re: [PATCH net v4 01/12] net: core: limit nested device depth

[Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 19:19, Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net> wrote:
>

Hi Sabrina,

Thank you for review and testing!

> 2019-09-28, 16:48:32 +0000, Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > @@ -6790,23 +6878,45 @@ int netdev_walk_all_lower_dev(struct net_device *dev,
> >                                       void *data),
> >                             void *data)
> >  {
> > -     struct net_device *ldev;
> > -     struct list_head *iter;
> > -     int ret;
> > +     struct net_device *ldev, *next, *now, *dev_stack[MAX_NEST_DEV + 1];
> > +     struct list_head *niter, *iter, *iter_stack[MAX_NEST_DEV + 1];
> > +     int ret, cur = 0;
> >
> > -     for (iter = &dev->adj_list.lower,
> > -          ldev = netdev_next_lower_dev(dev, &iter);
> > -          ldev;
> > -          ldev = netdev_next_lower_dev(dev, &iter)) {
> > -             /* first is the lower device itself */
> > -             ret = fn(ldev, data);
> > -             if (ret)
> > -                     return ret;
> > +     now = dev;
> > +     iter = &dev->adj_list.lower;
> >
> > -             /* then look at all of its lower devices */
> > -             ret = netdev_walk_all_lower_dev(ldev, fn, data);
> > -             if (ret)
> > -                     return ret;
> > +     while (1) {
> > +             if (now != dev) {
> > +                     ret = fn(now, data);
> > +                     if (ret)
> > +                             return ret;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             next = NULL;
> > +             while (1) {
> > +                     ldev = netdev_next_lower_dev(now, &iter);
> > +                     if (!ldev)
> > +                             break;
> > +
> > +                     if (!next) {
> > +                             next = ldev;
> > +                             niter = &ldev->adj_list.lower;
> > +                     } else {
> > +                             dev_stack[cur] = ldev;
> > +                             iter_stack[cur++] = &ldev->adj_list.lower;
> > +                             break;
> > +                     }
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             if (!next) {
> > +                     if (!cur)
> > +                             return 0;
>
> Hmm, I don't think this condition is correct.
>
> If we have this topology:
>
>
>                 bridge0
>                 /  |  \
>                /   |   \
>               /    |    \
>         dummy0   vlan1   vlan2
>                    |       \
>                  dummy1    dummy2
>
> We end up with the expected lower/upper levels for all devices:
>
>     | device  | upper | lower |
>     |---------+-------+-------|
>     | dummy0  |     2 |     1 |
>     | dummy1  |     3 |     1 |
>     | dummy2  |     3 |     1 |
>     | vlan1   |     2 |     2 |
>     | vlan2   |     2 |     2 |
>     | bridge0 |     1 |     3 |
>
>
> If we then add macvlan0 on top of bridge0:
>
>
>                 macvlan0
>                    |
>                    |
>                 bridge0
>                 /  |  \
>                /   |   \
>               /    |    \
>         dummy0   vlan1   vlan2
>                    |       \
>                  dummy1    dummy2
>
>
> we can observe that __netdev_update_upper_level is only called for
> some of the devices under bridge0. I added a perf probe:
>
>  # perf probe -a '__netdev_update_upper_level dev->name:string'
>
> which gets hit for bridge0 (called directly by
> __netdev_upper_dev_link) and then dummy0, vlan1, dummy1. It is never
> called for vlan2 and dummy2.
>
> After this, we have the following levels (*):
>
>     | device   | upper | lower |
>     |----------+-------+-------|
>     | dummy0   |     3 |     1 |
>     | dummy1   |     4 |     1 |
>     | dummy2   |     3 |     1 |
>     | vlan1    |     3 |     2 |
>     | vlan2    |     2 |     2 |
>     | bridge0  |     2 |     3 |
>     | macvlan0 |     1 |     4 |
>
> For dummy0, dummy1, vlan1, the upper level has increased by 1, as
> expected. For dummy2 and vlan2, it's still the same, which is wrong.
>
>
> (*) observed easily by adding another probe:
>
>  # perf probe -a 'dev_get_stats dev->name:string dev->upper_level dev->lower_level'
>
> and running "ip link"
>
> Or you can just add prints and recompile, of course :)
>

Thank you so much, I found a bug very easily with your test config.
I will fix this bug in a v5 patch.

> > +                     next = dev_stack[--cur];
> > +                     niter = iter_stack[cur];
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             now = next;
> > +             iter = niter;
> >       }
> >
> >       return 0;
>
> --
> Sabrina

Thank you,
Taehee Yoo