Re: the virtual device management in eth-multiplexer

[Da Zheng]

Hi,

olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 02:20:41AM +0000, Da Zheng wrote:
>
>   
> > In the  current implementation, the device and the node associated to
> > it are  created when file_name_lookup() is called. when the last
> > client closes  the virtual device, the device is destroyed along with
> > the node.
> >
> > However, there are several problems: If the program that access the
> > device file is "ls", the behavior is  quite strange. if "ls" accesses
> > a device file, for example "ls veth0" is  called, eth-multiplexer
> > creates the node and the virtual device. since  "ls" never open the
> > device, the device is never destroyed and the device  file always
> > exists in the directory.
> >     
>
> This is a bug. The node should go away when it no longer has any users.
> When pfinet (or some other real user) uses a device, it will probably
> discard the port to the FS node (resulting from file_name_lookup() )
> after the device_open(), but it still has the port for the actual
> device, so the node is in use -- the open device keeps the node around.
> When the client closes the device, there are no references anymore, and
> the node is destroyed.
>
> ls on the other hand never does device_open(). The moment it discards
> the port from file_name_lookup(), the node isn't referenced anymore, and
> should be destroyed immediately, without the device ever having been
> opened.
>   
I don't really like this way: the node is discarded when the device is 
still open.
When you said that netfs could be used to display all devices, I thought 
it was a good idea because I could show the status of devices in the 
device file directory.
If the node is discarded when the client (pfinet) closes the port, then 
what is the reason to use netfs. trivfs is very enough for this.
Besides, if the node is deleted instantly, the user has no choice to 
control the permission of accessing the device by changing the 
permission of the node.
I think a lot of good features are gone.
> > Another problem is that if the device is created in
> > file_name_lookup(),  any user can create a device as long as the user
> > has the read permission  of the directory where eth-multiplexer sits.
> >     
>
> Well, the user can open an arbitrary dynamically-created device for
> reading. I'm don't know whether this makes any sense for network
> devices; but it doesn't really seem wrong...
>   
If you think the node should exist instantly, then this shouldn't be an 
issue.
>   
> > so maybe it is better to give up the idea that the directory where
> > eth-multiplexer sits is the place to show the status of devices and
> > allow the client to operate the device file just like the normal file.
> > for example, before accessing the device, the client has to create a
> > device with "touch eth0" and afterwards, destroy it with "rm eth0".
> >     
>
> I already considered such a possibility: allow explicitely creating
> static devices *in addition* to the dynamic ones... Though I wonder
> whether in this case it wouldn't be better simply to set up devnode
> instances explicitely.
>
> In any case, I want to keep the dynamic nodes -- it's just much more
> convenient.
>   
It depends on what you mean "dynamic". I think the current 
implementation is too "dynamic":-)
If you compare my original implementation (the number of virtual devices 
is set when the eth-mutliplexer is started), the way of creating the 
virtual device explicitly with "touch" (or something else) is still very 
dynamic.

By the way, antrik, just let you know that I won't work on Hurd or join 
the Friday meeting in this and next month because I am busying on my 
master thesis now.

Zheng Da