Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:21:05 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, Vadym Kochan <vkochan@marvell.com>,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@marvell.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 00/11] Cleanup in brport flags switchdev
 offload for DSA
Message-ID: <20210210122105.GA294287@shredder.lan>
References: <20210210091445.741269-1-olteanv@gmail.com>
 <a8e9284b-f0a6-0343-175d-8c323371ef8d@nvidia.com>
 <20210210104549.ga3lgjafn5x3htwj@skbuf>
 <a58e9615-036c-0431-4ea6-004af4988b27@nvidia.com>
 <20210210110125.rw6fvjtsqmmuglcg@skbuf>
 <90b255e6-efd2-b234-7bfc-4285331e56b1@nvidia.com>
 <20210210120106.g7blqje3wq4j5l6j@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210210120106.g7blqje3wq4j5l6j@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 01:05:57PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > On 10/02/2021 13:01, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:52:33PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >> On 10/02/2021 12:45, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > >>> Hi Nikolay,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Vladimir,
> > >>>> Let's take a step back for a moment and discuss the bridge unlock/lock sequences
> > >>>> that come with this set. I'd really like to avoid those as they're a recipe
> > >>>> for future problems. The only good way to achieve that currently is to keep
> > >>>> the PRE_FLAGS call and do that in unsleepable context but move the FLAGS call
> > >>>> after the flags have been changed (if they have changed obviously). That would
> > >>>> make the code read much easier since we'll have all our lock/unlock sequences
> > >>>> in the same code blocks and won't play games to get sleepable context.
> > >>>> Please let's think and work in that direction, rather than having:
> > >>>> +	spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock);
> > >>>> +	if (err) {
> > >>>> +		netdev_err(p->dev, "%s\n", extack._msg);
> > >>>> +		return err;
> > >>>>  	}
> > >>>> +
> > >>>>
> > >>>> which immediately looks like a bug even though after some code checking we can
> > >>>> verify it's ok. WDYT?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I plan to get rid of most of the br->lock since it's been abused for a very long
> > >>>> time because it's essentially STP lock, but people have started using it for other
> > >>>> things and I plan to fix that when I get more time.
> > >>>
> > >>> This won't make the sysfs codepath any nicer, will it?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Currently we'll have to live with a hack that checks if the flags have changed. I agree
> > >> it won't be pretty, but we won't have to unlock and lock again in the middle of the
> > >> called function and we'll have all our locking in the same place, easier to verify and
> > >> later easier to remove. Once I get rid of most of the br->lock usage we can revisit
> > >> the drop of PRE_FLAGS if it's a problem. The alternative is to change the flags, then
> > >> send the switchdev notification outside of the lock and revert the flags if it doesn't
> > >> go through which doesn't sound much better.
> > >> I'm open to any other suggestions, but definitely would like to avoid playing locking games.
> > >> Even if it means casing out flag setting from all other store_ functions for sysfs.
> > >
> > > By casing out flag settings you mean something like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > #define BRPORT_ATTR(_name, _mode, _show, _store)		\
> > > const struct brport_attribute brport_attr_##_name = { 	        \
> > > 	.attr = {.name = __stringify(_name), 			\
> > > 		 .mode = _mode },				\
> > > 	.show	= _show,					\
> > > 	.store_unlocked	= _store,				\
> > > };
> > >
> > > #define BRPORT_ATTR_FLAG(_name, _mask)				\
> > > static ssize_t show_##_name(struct net_bridge_port *p, char *buf) \
> > > {								\
> > > 	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", !!(p->flags & _mask));	\
> > > }								\
> > > static int store_##_name(struct net_bridge_port *p, unsigned long v) \
> > > {								\
> > > 	return store_flag(p, v, _mask);				\
> > > }								\
> > > static BRPORT_ATTR(_name, 0644,					\
> > > 		   show_##_name, store_##_name)
> > >
> > > static ssize_t brport_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > 			    struct attribute *attr,
> > > 			    const char *buf, size_t count)
> > > {
> > > 	...
> > >
> > > 	} else if (brport_attr->store_unlocked) {
> > > 		val = simple_strtoul(buf, &endp, 0);
> > > 		if (endp == buf)
> > > 			goto out_unlock;
> > > 		ret = brport_attr->store_unlocked(p, val);
> > > 	}
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this can work but will need a bit more changes because of br_port_flags_change().
> > Then the netlink side can be modeled in a similar way.
> 
> What I just don't understand is how others can get away with doing
> sleepable work in atomic context but I can't make the notifier blocking
> by dropping a spinlock which isn't needed there, because it looks ugly :D

Can you please point to the bug? I'm not following