linux/net/devlink, branch v6.7

netlink: specs: devlink: add forgotten port function caps enum values

2023-11-02T05:13:43Z

Add two enum values that the blamed commit omitted. Fixes: f2f9dd164db0 ("netlink: specs: devlink: add the remaining command to generate complete split_ops") Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231030161750.110420-1-jiri@resnulli.us Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

devlink: remove netlink small_ops

2023-10-23T23:16:51Z

All commands are now covered by generated split_ops. Remove the small_ops entirely alongside with unified devlink netlink policy array. Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231021112711.660606-11-jiri@resnulli.us Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

devlink: remove duplicated netlink callback prototypes

2023-10-23T23:16:51Z

The prototypes are now generated, remove the old ones. Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231021112711.660606-10-jiri@resnulli.us Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

netlink: specs: devlink: add the remaining command to generate complete split_ops

2023-10-23T23:16:32Z

Currently, some of the commands are not described in devlink yaml file and are manually filled in net/devlink/netlink.c in small_ops. To make all part of split_ops, add definitions of the rest of the commands alongside with needed attributes and enums. Note that this focuses on the kernel side. The requests are fully described in order to generate split_op alongside with policies. Follow-up will describe the replies in order to make the userspace helpers complete. Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231021112711.660606-9-jiri@resnulli.us Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

devlink: rename netlink callback to be aligned with the generated ones

2023-10-23T23:12:47Z

All remaining doit and dumpit netlink callback functions are going to be used by generated split ops. They expect certain name format. Rename the callback to be aligned with generated names. Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231021112711.660606-8-jiri@resnulli.us Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

devlink: convert most of devlink_fmsg_*() to return void

2023-10-20T10:34:51Z

Since struct devlink_fmsg retains error by now (see 1st patch of this series), there is no longer need to keep returning it in each call. This is a separate commit to allow per-driver conversion to stop using those return values. Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko Signed-off-by: Przemek Kitszel Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

devlink: retain error in struct devlink_fmsg

2023-10-20T10:34:49Z

Retain error value in struct devlink_fmsg, to relieve drivers from checking it after each call. Note that fmsg is an in-memory builder/buffer of formatted message, so it's not the case that half baked message was sent somewhere. We could find following scheme in multiple drivers: err = devlink_fmsg_obj_nest_start(fmsg); if (err) return err; err = devlink_fmsg_string_pair_put(fmsg, "src", src); if (err) return err; err = devlink_fmsg_something(fmsg, foo, bar); if (err) return err; // and so on... err = devlink_fmsg_obj_nest_end(fmsg); With retaining error API that translates to: devlink_fmsg_obj_nest_start(fmsg); devlink_fmsg_string_pair_put(fmsg, "src", src); devlink_fmsg_something(fmsg, foo, bar); // and so on... devlink_fmsg_obj_nest_end(fmsg); What means we check error just when is time to send. Possible error scenarios are developer error (API misuse) and memory exhaustion, both cases are good candidates to choose readability over fastest possible exit. Note that this patch keeps returning errors, to allow per-driver conversion to the new API, but those are not needed at this point already. This commit itself is an illustration of benefits for the dev-user, more of it will be in separate commits of the series. Reviewed-by: Jesse Brandeburg Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko Signed-off-by: Przemek Kitszel Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

devlink: document devlink_rel_nested_in_notify() function

2023-10-18T08:23:01Z

Add a documentation for devlink_rel_nested_in_notify() describing the devlink instance locking consequences. Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Simon Horman Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

devlink: don't take instance lock for nested handle put

2023-10-18T08:23:01Z

Lockdep reports following issue: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected ------------------------------------------------------ devlink/8191 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88813f32c250 (&devlink->lock_key#14){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: devlink_rel_devlink_handle_put+0x11e/0x2d0 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8511eca8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unregister_netdev+0xe/0x20 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #3 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: lock_acquire+0x1c3/0x500 __mutex_lock+0x14c/0x1b20 register_netdevice_notifier_net+0x13/0x30 mlx5_lag_add_mdev+0x51c/0xa00 [mlx5_core] mlx5_load+0x222/0xc70 [mlx5_core] mlx5_init_one_devl_locked+0x4a0/0x1310 [mlx5_core] mlx5_init_one+0x3b/0x60 [mlx5_core] probe_one+0x786/0xd00 [mlx5_core] local_pci_probe+0xd7/0x180 pci_device_probe+0x231/0x720 really_probe+0x1e4/0xb60 __driver_probe_device+0x261/0x470 driver_probe_device+0x49/0x130 __driver_attach+0x215/0x4c0 bus_for_each_dev+0xf0/0x170 bus_add_driver+0x21d/0x590 driver_register+0x133/0x460 vdpa_match_remove+0x89/0xc0 [vdpa] do_one_initcall+0xc4/0x360 do_init_module+0x22d/0x760 load_module+0x51d7/0x6750 init_module_from_file+0xd2/0x130 idempotent_init_module+0x326/0x5a0 __x64_sys_finit_module+0xc1/0x130 do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 -> #2 (mlx5_intf_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: lock_acquire+0x1c3/0x500 __mutex_lock+0x14c/0x1b20 mlx5_register_device+0x3e/0xd0 [mlx5_core] mlx5_init_one_devl_locked+0x8fa/0x1310 [mlx5_core] mlx5_devlink_reload_up+0x147/0x170 [mlx5_core] devlink_reload+0x203/0x380 devlink_nl_cmd_reload+0xb84/0x10e0 genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x1cc/0x2a0 genl_rcv_msg+0x3c9/0x670 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12c/0x360 genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 netlink_unicast+0x435/0x6f0 netlink_sendmsg+0x7a0/0xc70 sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1c8/0x290 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 -> #1 (&dev->lock_key#8){+.+.}-{3:3}: lock_acquire+0x1c3/0x500 __mutex_lock+0x14c/0x1b20 mlx5_init_one_devl_locked+0x45/0x1310 [mlx5_core] mlx5_devlink_reload_up+0x147/0x170 [mlx5_core] devlink_reload+0x203/0x380 devlink_nl_cmd_reload+0xb84/0x10e0 genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x1cc/0x2a0 genl_rcv_msg+0x3c9/0x670 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12c/0x360 genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 netlink_unicast+0x435/0x6f0 netlink_sendmsg+0x7a0/0xc70 sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1c8/0x290 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 -> #0 (&devlink->lock_key#14){+.+.}-{3:3}: check_prev_add+0x1af/0x2300 __lock_acquire+0x31d7/0x4eb0 lock_acquire+0x1c3/0x500 __mutex_lock+0x14c/0x1b20 devlink_rel_devlink_handle_put+0x11e/0x2d0 devlink_nl_port_fill+0xddf/0x1b00 devlink_port_notify+0xb5/0x220 __devlink_port_type_set+0x151/0x510 devlink_port_netdevice_event+0x17c/0x220 notifier_call_chain+0x97/0x240 unregister_netdevice_many_notify+0x876/0x1790 unregister_netdevice_queue+0x274/0x350 unregister_netdev+0x18/0x20 mlx5e_vport_rep_unload+0xc5/0x1c0 [mlx5_core] __esw_offloads_unload_rep+0xd8/0x130 [mlx5_core] mlx5_esw_offloads_rep_unload+0x52/0x70 [mlx5_core] mlx5_esw_offloads_unload_rep+0x85/0xc0 [mlx5_core] mlx5_eswitch_unload_sf_vport+0x41/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_devlink_sf_port_del+0x120/0x280 [mlx5_core] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x1cc/0x2a0 genl_rcv_msg+0x3c9/0x670 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12c/0x360 genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 netlink_unicast+0x435/0x6f0 netlink_sendmsg+0x7a0/0xc70 sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1c8/0x290 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &devlink->lock_key#14 --> mlx5_intf_mutex --> rtnl_mutex Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(rtnl_mutex); lock(mlx5_intf_mutex); lock(rtnl_mutex); lock(&devlink->lock_key#14); Problem is taking the devlink instance lock of nested instance when RTNL is already held. To fix this, don't take the devlink instance lock when putting nested handle. Instead, rely on the preparations done by previous two patches to be able to access device pointer and obtain netns id without devlink instance lock held. Fixes: c137743bce02 ("devlink: introduce object and nested devlink relationship infra") Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Simon Horman Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

devlink: take device reference for devlink object

2023-10-18T08:23:01Z

In preparation to allow to access device pointer without devlink instance lock held, make sure the device pointer is usable until devlink_release() is called. Fixes: c137743bce02 ("devlink: introduce object and nested devlink relationship infra") Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Simon Horman Signed-off-by: David S. Miller