Recent 'transparenf VF' changes to netvsc driver made VF interfaces
register as netvsc interface slaves upon appearance. This led to udev
not being able to rename the interface according to the 'predictable
interface names' scheme:
kernel: mlx4_core 0002:00:02.0 eth2: joined to eth1
kernel: hv_netvsc 33b7a6f9-6736-451f-8fce-b382eaa50bee eth1: VF
registering: eth2
kernel: mlx4_en: eth2: Link Up
kernel: hv_netvsc 33b7a6f9-6736-451f-8fce-b382eaa50bee eth1: Data path
switched to VF: eth2
systemd-udevd[1785]: Error changing net interface name 'eth2' to
'enP2p0s2': Device or resource busy
systemd-udevd[1785]: could not rename interface '5' from 'eth2' to
'enP2p0s2': Device or resource busy
What happens is: __netvsc_vf_setup() does dev_open() for the VF device and
the consecutive dev_change_name() fails with -EBUSY because of the
(dev->flags & IFF_UP) check. The history of this code predates git so I
wasn't able to figure out when and why the check was added, everything
seems to work fine without it. dev_change_name() has only two call sites,
both hold rtnl_lock.
Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
---
RFC: I'm probably miossing something obvious and the check can't be just
dropped. Stephen suggested a different solution to the isuue:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg448243.html but it has its own
drawbacks.
---
net/core/dev.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 1d75499add72..c608e233a78a 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -1186,8 +1186,6 @@ int dev_change_name(struct net_device *dev, const char *newname)
BUG_ON(!dev_net(dev));
net = dev_net(dev);
- if (dev->flags & IFF_UP)
- return -EBUSY;
write_seqcount_begin(&devnet_rename_seq);
--
2.13.4
2017-08-09 19:42 GMT+09:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>:
> What happens is: __netvsc_vf_setup() does dev_open() for the VF device and
> the consecutive dev_change_name() fails with -EBUSY because of the
> (dev->flags & IFF_UP) check. The history of this code predates git so I
> wasn't able to figure out when and why the check was added, everything
> seems to work fine without it. dev_change_name() has only two call sites,
> both hold rtnl_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
> ---
> RFC: I'm probably miossing something obvious and the check can't be just
> dropped. Stephen suggested a different solution to the isuue:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg448243.html but it has its own
> drawbacks.
> ---
> net/core/dev.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index 1d75499add72..c608e233a78a 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -1186,8 +1186,6 @@ int dev_change_name(struct net_device *dev, const char *newname)
> BUG_ON(!dev_net(dev));
>
> net = dev_net(dev);
> - if (dev->flags & IFF_UP)
> - return -EBUSY;
>
> write_seqcount_begin(&devnet_rename_seq);
I think people expect the name won't change while up
and I don't think it is a good idea to allow changing the
name while the interface is up.
--yoshfuji
>
> --
> 2.13.4
>
吉藤英明 <[email protected]> writes:
> 2017-08-09 19:42 GMT+09:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>:
>> What happens is: __netvsc_vf_setup() does dev_open() for the VF device and
>> the consecutive dev_change_name() fails with -EBUSY because of the
>> (dev->flags & IFF_UP) check. The history of this code predates git so I
>> wasn't able to figure out when and why the check was added, everything
>> seems to work fine without it. dev_change_name() has only two call sites,
>> both hold rtnl_lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> RFC: I'm probably miossing something obvious and the check can't be just
>> dropped. Stephen suggested a different solution to the isuue:
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg448243.html but it has its own
>> drawbacks.
>> ---
>> net/core/dev.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>> index 1d75499add72..c608e233a78a 100644
>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>> @@ -1186,8 +1186,6 @@ int dev_change_name(struct net_device *dev, const char *newname)
>> BUG_ON(!dev_net(dev));
>>
>> net = dev_net(dev);
>> - if (dev->flags & IFF_UP)
>> - return -EBUSY;
>>
>> write_seqcount_begin(&devnet_rename_seq);
>
> I think people expect the name won't change while up
> and I don't think it is a good idea to allow changing the
> name while the interface is up.
I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to
have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular, doesn't
happen 'under the hood' -- someone privileged enough needs to request
the change.
Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by
the change?
--
Vitaly
> I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to
> have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular, doesn't
> happen 'under the hood' -- someone privileged enough needs to request
> the change.
>
> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by
> the change?
How about:
man 8 dhclient-script
The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get
the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if
they are given the old name, which no longer exists.
Andrew
Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> writes:
>> I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to
>> have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular, doesn't
>> happen 'under the hood' -- someone privileged enough needs to request
>> the change.
>>
>> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by
>> the change?
>
> How about:
>
> man 8 dhclient-script
>
> The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get
> the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if
> they are given the old name, which no longer exists.
Yes but why would anyone change interface name while dhclient-script is
running? Things will also go wrong if you try bringing interface down
during the run or do some other configuration, right? Running multiple
configuration tools at the same moment is a bad idea, you never know
what you're gonna end up with.
As I see it, checks in kernel we have are meant to protect kernel
itself, not to disallow all user<->kernel interactions leading to
imperfect result.
(AFAIU) If we remove the check nothing is going to change: udev will
still be renaming interfaces before bringing them up. In netvsc case
users are not supposed to configure the VF interface at all, it just
becomes a slave of netvsc interface.
--
Vitaly
> >> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by
> >> the change?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > man 8 dhclient-script
> >
> > The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get
> > the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if
> > they are given the old name, which no longer exists.
>
> Yes but why would anyone change interface name while dhclient-script is
> running? Things will also go wrong if you try bringing interface down
> during the run or do some other configuration, right?
dhclient already handles the interface going down. sendto/recvfrom
fails and returns an error code. As far as i remember, dhclient then
exits.
> Running multiple configuration tools at the same moment is a bad
> idea, you never know what you're gonna end up with.
It could be argued that configuring an interface vs renaming an
interface are at different levels.
Andrew