Re: [PATCH net] vxlan: do not destroy fdb if register_netdevice() is failed

[Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 14:03, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:08 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 13:12, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi Roopa,
> >
> > Thank you for the review!
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:18 PM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 03:07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi David,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the review!
> > > >
> > > > > From: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:51:08 +0900
> > > > >
> > > > > > __vxlan_dev_create() destroys FDB using specific pointer which indicates
> > > > > > a fdb when error occurs.
> > > > > > But that pointer should not be used when register_netdevice() fails because
> > > > > > register_netdevice() internally destroys fdb when error occurs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order to avoid un-registered dev's notification, fdb destroying routine
> > > > > > checks dev's register status before notification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply pass do_notify as false in this failure code path of __vxlan_dev_create(),
> > > > > thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Failure path of __vxlan_dev_create() can't handle do_notify in that case
> > > > because if register_netdevice() fails it internally calls
> > > > ->ndo_uninit() which is
> > > > vxlan_uninit().
> > > > vxlan_uninit() internally calls vxlan_fdb_delete_default() and it callls
> > > > vxlan_fdb_destroy().
> > > > do_notify of vxlan_fdb_destroy() in vxlan_fdb_delete_default() is always true.
> > > > So, failure path of __vxlan_dev_create() doesn't have any opportunity to
> > > > handle do_notify.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see register_netdevice calling ndo_uninit in case of all
> > > errors. In the case where it does not,
> > > does your patch leak the fdb entry ?.
> > >
> > > Wondering if we should just use vxlan_fdb_delete_default with a notify
> > > flag to delete the entry if exists.
> > > Will that help ?
> > >
> > > There is another commit that touched this code path:
> > > commit 6db9246871394b3a136cd52001a0763676563840
> > >
> > > Author: Petr Machata <petrm@mellanox.com>
> > > Date:   Tue Dec 18 13:16:00 2018 +0000
> > >     vxlan: Fix error path in __vxlan_dev_create()
> >
> > I have checked up failure path of register_netdevice().
> > Yes, this patch leaks fdb entry.
> > There are 3 failure cases in the register_netdevice().
> > A. error occurs before calling ->ndo_init().
> > it doesn't call ->ndo_uninit().
> > B. error occurs after calling ->ndo_init().
> > it calls ->ndo_uninit() and dev->reg_state is NETREG_UNINITIALIZED.
> > C. error occurs after registering netdev. it calls rollback_registered().
> > rollback_registered() internally calls ->ndo_uninit()
> > and dev->reg_state is NETREG_UNREGISTERING.
> >
> > A panic due to these problem could be fixed by using
> > vxlan_fdb_delete_default() with notify flag.
> > But notification problem could not be fixed clearly
> > because of the case C.
>
> yes, you are right. The notification issue still remains.
>
> >
> > I don't have clear solution for the case C.
> > Please let me know, if you have any good idea for fixing the case C.
>
> One option is a variant of fdb create. alloc the fdb  but don't assign
> it to the vxlan dev.
> __vxlan_dev_create
>              create fdb entry
>              register_netdevice
>              rtnl_configure_link
>              link fdb to vxlan
>              fdb notify
>
>
> Yet another option is moving fdb create after register_netdevice
> __vxlan_dev_create
>              register_netdevice
>              rtnl_configure_link
>              create fdb entry
>              fdb notify
> But if fdb create fails, user-space will see , NEWLINK + DELLINK when
> creating a vxlan device and that seems weird.

Thank you for suggesting ideas!

I think first one is very nice.
It's simple and clear.
So, I have been testing first one.
I will send a new patch after more testing.

Thank you again!