[PATCH] netns: remove useless synchronize_net()

[Daniel Lezcano]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at free.fr> writes:
>   
>> Hmm, at the first glance I would say it is useless but perhaps there is a trick
>> here I do not understand.
>> Eric, is there any particular reason to call synchronize_net before exiting the
>> dev_change_net_namespace function ?
>>     
>
> I haven't thought about that part of the code path in detail in a long
> time.  dev_change_net_namespace() is a condensed version of
> register_netdevice() unregister_netdevice().  With the calls down into
> the driver removed.
>
> On a side note.  It looks like we now cope with:
> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_REGISTER, dev); failing in
> register_netdev, but no one updated dev_change_net_namespace to handle
> the change, looks like a real pain to cope with.
>
> As for the synchronize_net, and in response to the original
> comment as best as I can tell we do have things being being
> deleted that are at least candidates for synchronize_net.
>
> dev_addr_discard(dev);
> dev_net_set(dev, net);
> netdev_unregister_kobject(dev);
>
> We very much do access dev->net with only rcu protection.
>
> Hmm.
>
> It looks like I originally took the second synchronize_net from what
> became rollback_registered, which happens just before we start freeing
> the netdevice.
>
> The nastiest case that I can envision is if we happen to receive a
> packet (on another cpu) for the network device that we are moving,
> just after it has registered in the new network namespace.  If we read
> the old network namespace and forward it up the network stack in that
> context I can imagine it being a recipe for all kinds of strange
> non-deterministic behavior.
>   

The code does:

    dev_close
       dev_deactive
          synchronize_rcu
    synchronize_net
    ...
    dev_shutdown
    ...
    synchronize_net

The network device can no longer receive packets after dev_deactive, no ?
The first synchronize_net will wait for the outstanding packets to be 
delivered to the upper layer and we change the nd_net field after.
Your scenario makes sense for the first synchronize_net but I am not 
sure that can happen if we remove the second synchronize_net.

> So unless there is a reason for this change beyond general cleanup I
> would prefer not to think about it potential weirdness, and keep the
> code the way it is.
>
> I seem to remember a conversation about this synchronize_net when the
> code was merged as well so if we are going to change it, let's look
> up those arguments if we can and see if there was something useful
> said.
>
> Eric
>
>
>