| Message ID | 20220411133837.318876-4-troglobit@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | RFC |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: bridge: forwarding of unknown IPv4/IPv6/MAC BUM traffic | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for net-next |
| netdev/apply | fail | Patch does not apply to net-next |
On 11/04/2022 16:38, Joachim Wiberg wrote: > The br_setlink() function extracts the struct net_bridge pointer a bit > sloppy. It's easy to interpret the code wrong. This patch attempts to > clear things up a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> > --- > net/bridge/br_netlink.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > I think you can make it more straight-forward, remove the first br = netdev_priv and do something like (completely untested): ... struct net_bridge_port *p = NULL; ... if (netif_is_bridge_master(dev)) { br = netdev_priv(dev); } else { p = br_port_get_rtnl(dev); if (WARN_ON(!p)) return -EINVAL; br = p->br; } So br is always and only set in this block. > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c > index 7fca8ff13ec7..8f4297287b32 100644 > --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c > +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c > @@ -1040,6 +1040,8 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, u16 flags, > return 0; > > p = br_port_get_rtnl(dev); > + if (p) > + br = p->br; > /* We want to accept dev as bridge itself if the AF_SPEC > * is set to see if someone is setting vlan info on the bridge > */ > @@ -1055,17 +1057,17 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, u16 flags, > if (err) > return err; > > - spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock); > + spin_lock_bh(&br->lock); > err = br_setport(p, tb, extack); > - spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); > + spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock); > } else { > /* Binary compatibility with old RSTP */ > if (nla_len(protinfo) < sizeof(u8)) > return -EINVAL; > > - spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock); > + spin_lock_bh(&br->lock); > err = br_set_port_state(p, nla_get_u8(protinfo)); > - spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); > + spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock); > } > if (err) > goto out;
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 21:36, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org> wrote: > On 11/04/2022 16:38, Joachim Wiberg wrote: >> The br_setlink() function extracts the struct net_bridge pointer a bit >> sloppy. It's easy to interpret the code wrong. This patch attempts to >> clear things up a bit. > I think you can make it more straight-forward, remove the first br = netdev_priv > and do something like (completely untested): > ... > struct net_bridge_port *p = NULL; > ... > if (netif_is_bridge_master(dev)) { > br = netdev_priv(dev); > } else { > p = br_port_get_rtnl(dev); > if (WARN_ON(!p)) > return -EINVAL; > br = p->br; > } > > So br is always and only set in this block. Yes, this is much better, thank you! I took the misguided approach of minmizing my change. I'll update and include in the non-RFC patch series I send next.
diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c index 7fca8ff13ec7..8f4297287b32 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c @@ -1040,6 +1040,8 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, u16 flags, return 0; p = br_port_get_rtnl(dev); + if (p) + br = p->br; /* We want to accept dev as bridge itself if the AF_SPEC * is set to see if someone is setting vlan info on the bridge */ @@ -1055,17 +1057,17 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, u16 flags, if (err) return err; - spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock); + spin_lock_bh(&br->lock); err = br_setport(p, tb, extack); - spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); + spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock); } else { /* Binary compatibility with old RSTP */ if (nla_len(protinfo) < sizeof(u8)) return -EINVAL; - spin_lock_bh(&p->br->lock); + spin_lock_bh(&br->lock); err = br_set_port_state(p, nla_get_u8(protinfo)); - spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); + spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock); } if (err) goto out;
The br_setlink() function extracts the struct net_bridge pointer a bit sloppy. It's easy to interpret the code wrong. This patch attempts to clear things up a bit. Signed-off-by: Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> --- net/bridge/br_netlink.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)