netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

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:	Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:05:34 +0800
From:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
CC:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name
 changed

On 2014/1/10 15:44, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20:45PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> On 2014/1/9 20:30, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:58PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> On 2014/1/9 19:46, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>>>> If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>>>>>> still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>>>>>> primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
>>>>> because of an interface name change.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know what you mean, but it is not bug fix, just make it more better,
>>>> do not you feel it strange that the primary was different with primary_slave's name?
>>>
>>> Yep, that's an issue - that's why there is the TODO. We shouldn't, though,
>>> change the primary param, but rather check if the slave (that changed name)
>>> is (already not) eligible for primary_slave.
>>>
>>
>> Ok，So，summarize your and my opinion, I think there are two ways to fix this:
>>
>> 1. just like my patch said.
> 
> No, the primary string is user-set, and it should *not* be changed by
> kernel.
> 
>> 2. check if the primary is not the primary_slave, make the primary_slave = NULL, this means
>>   the primary_slave is no valid.
> 
> Check the slave that changed name - if it's the primary slave, remove it,
> and see if we need to select the new active slave. 

Ok, agree.

> If it's not the primray
> slave, and we don't have one - select it as a new primary and, again, see
> if we need to select a new active slave.

I don't think so , I think if it is not the primary slave and we don't have one,
no need to do anything, just a normal slave change its name.

Regards
Ding

> 
>> 3. ?? did you have any better ideas?
>>
>> Regards
>> Ding
>>

>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> .
> 


--
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