netdev - Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio

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, 30 Jan 2016 12:34:11 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com,
	bjornar.ness@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, vfalico@...il.com,
	gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, mst@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio

Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 07:59:24AM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:48:26 +0100
>
>> On 01/29/2016 10:45 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>> Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 01/25/2016 05:24 PM, Bjørnar Ness wrote:
>>>>> As subject says, 802.3ad bonding is not working with virtio network model.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only errors I see is:
>>>>>
>>>>> No 802.3ad response from the link partner for any adapters in the bond.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dumping the network traffic shows that no LACP packets are sent from the
>>>>> host running with virtio driver, changing to for example e1000 solves
>>>>> this problem
>>>>> with no configuration changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a known problem?
>>>>>
>>>> [Including bonding maintainers for comments]
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Here's a workaround patch for virtio_net devices that "cheats" the
>>>> duplex test (which is the actual problem). I've tested this locally
>>>> and it works for me.
>>>> I'd let the others comment on the implementation, there're other signs
>>>> that can be used to distinguish a virtio_net device so I'm open to suggestions.
>>>> Also feedback if this is at all acceptable would be appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 	Should virtio instead provide an arbitrary speed and full duplex
>>> to ethtool, as veth does?
>>> 
>>> 	Creating a magic whitelist of devices deep inside the 802.3ad
>>> implementation seems less desirable.
>>> 
>> TBH, I absolutely agree. In fact here's what we've been doing:
>> add set_settings which allows the user to set any speed/duplex
>> and get_settings of course to retrieve that. This is also useful
>> for testing other stuff that requires speed and duplex, not only
>> for the bonding case.
>
>I also agree.  Having a whitelist is just rediculous.
>
>There should be a default speed/duplex setting for such devices as well.
>We can pick one that will be use universally for these kinds of devices.

Exposing made up speed for veth and virtio_net sounds odd to me. User
see 10000Mb/s but it makes no sense at all. It is just confusing.

I believe this is bonding bug and should be fixed in there. Team works
fine with virtio_net device and lacp runner.