netdev - Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:21:55 +0100
From:	Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>, aowi@...ozymes.com
Subject: Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - bisected

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc> wrote:
> 
>> Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>> Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The offending commit seems to be:
>>>>
>>>> A test with a fresh 2.6.29-rc6 revealed that the problem has been fixed
>>>> subsequently.. but still exists in 2.6.27-newest.  (havent tested
>>>> 2.6.28-newest yet).
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas of what the "fixing" commit is .. or should that also be
>>>> bisected?
>>> 	I went back and looked at your earlier mail.  Since you're using
>>> 802.3ad mode, my first guess would be this commit:
>>>
>>> commit fd989c83325cb34795bc4d4aa6b13c06f90eac99
>>> Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>>> Date:   Tue Nov 4 17:51:16 2008 -0800
>>>
>>>     bonding: alternate agg selection policies for 802.3ad
>> That didn't do it.. I applied it to 2.6.27.19 but it didnt make that work.
>> dmesg | grep bond (2.6.27.19 + above patch).
> 
> 	That was the only real functional change to 802.3ad, there are a
> lot of other commits, but they're all style or cleanup sorts of things.
> 
>> [   13.643301] bonding: MII link monitoring set to 100 ms
>> [   13.730455] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth0 as a backup interface with
>> an up link.
>> [   13.781934] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth1 as a backup interface with
>> an up link.
>> [   13.904665] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth2 as a backup interface with a
>> down link.
>> [   16.945264] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth2.
>> [   75.040290] bond0: no IPv6 routers present
>>
>> dmesg | grep bond (2.6.29-rc6)
>>
>> $ ssh quad02 dmesg | grep bond
>> [   27.437877] bonding: MII link monitoring set to 100 ms
>> [   27.445246] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): bond0: link is not ready
>> [   27.493260] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth0 as a backup interface with a
>> down link.
>> [   27.521397] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth1 as a backup interface with a
>> down link.
>> [   27.542332] bonding: bond0: Warning: No 802.3ad response from the link
>> partner for any adapters in the bond
>> [   27.611509] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth2 as a backup interface with a
>> down link.
>> [   27.617017] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): bond0: link becomes ready
>> [   27.642330] bonding: bond0: Warning: No 802.3ad response from the link
>> partner for any adapters in the bond
>> [   30.042501] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth1.
>> [   30.142505] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0.
>> [   30.742547] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth2.
>> [   37.875044] bond0: no IPv6 routers present
>>
>> I just tested 2.6.28.7.. it still broken. So the fix probably has to be
>> somewhere in the post 2.6.28 sets.
> 
> 	It looks like the above two tests are on different machines, or
> were at least done with different network cards.  Is that the case?

There is 12 Sun Fire X2200 in the rack, they are fully identical (some 
with a small difference in memory configuration as the only difference.

So yes, different machines, but same hardware (bought in the same 
shipment, etc. etc).

> 	I'm just wondering if what you're seeing is somehow tied to the
> network devices' respective autonegotiation speeds, or some difference
> in the device drivers.  The first dmesg looks to have one slow (3 sec)
> and two fast ones; the second dmesg looks to have all slow devices.
> 
> 	Have you tried the kernels the other way around (the first
> kernel on the second machine, and vice versa)?

Yes, I've randomly picked a machine in the set to do the test, they all 
falls out as "predicted".

> 	I'll compile 2.6.28.7 here and see if it works for me.



Jesper
-- 
Jesper
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html