|
Hello,
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> I wonder if we are chasing ghosts...
>
> With proper fault handling I can't even see a case when it (net->ipvs) can be
> used.
> Can you see a case when it could happen?
> Still we can set it to NULL on error exit and cleanup as you suggested, that
> doesn't harm I think.
>
> A. If you add a netns and it fails the entire ns will be rolled back,
> and no access to that ns can occur.
> That ns does not exist
Agreed
> B. If you insert ip_vs.ko when having one or more name spaces and
> __ip_vs_init() returns an error the module will be unloaded.
> All ready loaded ns will not be affected.
Yes, ip_vs_init fails.
> C. insmod of ex. ip_vs_ftp only affects loaded name spaces
> and if the load of ip_vs_ftp fails it will be unloaded without affecting
> ip_vs(.ko)
> (If ip_vs.ko is not loaded then it has to be loaded first case B...)
>
> With a "compiled in" ip_vs case B doesn't exist.
It is this case that can happen, we can only guess how
difficult is to get ENOMEM here. IIRC, we can generate only
ENOMEM error on IPVS core load.
I assume Simon has such setup and changes code to
trigger load error. When I generate ENOMEM on IPVS core init
for such case I get ENOENT from register_ip_vs_app when
patch 1 and 2 for apps are applied, i.e. net->ipvs is NULL.
You can check it with NF_CONNTRACK=y, IP_VS=y and
IP_VS_FTP=m. You only need to trigger ENOMEM in __ip_vs_init.
> With proper fault handling i.e. all ways returning fault codes to the netns
> init,
> there is no need for checking for "if (!net->ipvs)" or any other action.
Probably but one check on load does not hurt much.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
