Date:	Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:24:40 +0200
From:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To:	Yuval Mintz <yuvalmin@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <ariele@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: Question regarding failure utilizing bonding mode 5 (balance-tlb)

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:30:40AM +0000, Yuval Mintz wrote:
>> > >Again, I think the permanent address is restored only when the bond
>> > >releases the slave, which I don't think happens when the slave is unloaded.
>> >
>> > 	Ah, ok, I was understanding "unloaded" to mean "remove from the
>> > bond."  I think you actually mean "set administratively down," e.g., "ip
>> > link set dev slave down" or the like.  I don't think mere loss of
>> > carrier would trigger the sequence of events, because that won't go
>> > through a dev_close / dev_open cycle.
>> >
>> > 	Doing that (an admin down / up bounce) would, indeed, cause a
>> > failover, but the bond will not reprogram the MAC on the slave (it
>> > presumes that a fail / recovery will not disrupt the MAC address, which
>> > is apparently not true in this instance).
>> >
>> > 	I'll have to look at the code a bit, but for now can you confirm
>> > that what you actually mean is, essentially:
>> >
>> > 	Given a bond0 with two slaves, eth0 and eth1, in tlb mode, eth0
>> > being the active,
>> >
>> > 	1) "ip link set dev eth0 down" which will fail over to eth1
>> > 		(swapping the contents of their dev_addr fields).
>> >
>> > 	2) "ip link set dev eth0 up" eth0 comes back up, reprograms its
>> > 		MAC to the wrong thing (what was in dev_addr).
>> >
>> > 	3) repeat steps 1 and 2 for eth1
>> >
>> > 	Is this correct?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, sorry for the earlier confusion.
>> I think in the case described `alb_swap_mac_addr()' will be called,
>> replacing eth0 and eth1's dev_addr, causing eth0 to have dev_addr
>> which defers from  the bond device's. Once eth0 reloads, it will use
>> the different MAC address for configuring FW/HW.
>
>Hi,
>
>Did you by any chance had the time to look at this issue?

Hi Yuval,

Sorry for getting into the discussion - but I've tried to understand the
problem and, possibly, find a fix.

I'm not sure that I completely understand it, and I don't have currently
hardware on which to test it (though I might have it in the nearest
future), so, again, I really am not sure that I won't suggest something
completely stupid.

Anyway, that being said, I hope that the following patch might fix the
problem. I've described the bug and the fix in the changelog, and the code
is pretty self-explanitory.

And even if the patch fixes the issue - I'm not sure that it's the proper
and correct way to do it. But it's definitely worth a try... So, if it's
possible, could you please test this patch and see if it fixes it?

Warning: I've just compile-tested it.

So, FWIW...

 From 87e6c584b0ae0f0261610d60cf83778feb9c1edb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:14:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] bonding: ensure that TLB mode's active slave has correct mac filter

Currently, in TLB mode we change mac addresses only by memcpy-ing the to
net_device->dev_addr, without actually setting them via
dev_set_mac_address(). This permits us to receive all the traffic always on
one mac address.

However, in case the interface flips, some drivers might enforce the
mac filtering for its FW/HW based on current ->dev_addr, and thus we won't
be able to receive traffic on that interface, in case it will be selected
as active in TLB mode.

Fix it by setting the mac address forcefully on every new active slave that
we select in TLB mode.

CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
---
  drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
index e960418..576ccea 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
@@ -1699,6 +1699,23 @@ void bond_alb_handle_active_change(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_slave
  
  	ASSERT_RTNL();
  
+	/* in TLB mode, the slave might flip down/up with the old dev_addr,
+	 * and thus filter bond->dev_addr's packets, so force bond's mac
+	 */
+	if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_TLB) {
+		struct sockaddr sa;
+		u8 tmp_addr[ETH_ALEN];
+
+		memcpy(tmp_addr, new_slave->dev->dev_addr, ETH_ALEN);
+
+		memcpy(sa.sa_data, bond->dev->dev_addr, bond->dev->addr_len);
+		sa.sa_family = bond->dev->type;
+		/* we don't care if it can't change its mac, best effort */
+		dev_set_mac_address(new_slave->dev, &sa);
+
+		memcpy(new_slave->dev->dev_addr, tmp_addr, ETH_ALEN);
+	}
+
  	/* curr_active_slave must be set before calling alb_swap_mac_addr */
  	if (swap_slave) {
  		/* swap mac address */
-- 
1.8.4


>
>Thanks,
>Yuval
>
>--
>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
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists