netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] bonding: don't use stale speed and duplex information

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, 26 Feb 2016 10:21:51 +0800
From:	zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
	dingtianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] bonding: don't use stale speed and duplex
 information

On 02/25/2016 09:33 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I delved into the source code and Emil's tests. I think that the problem
>> that this patch expects to fix occurs very unusually.
>>
>> Do you agree with me?
>>
>> If so, maybe the following patch can reduce the performance loss.
>> Please comment on it. Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index b7f1a99..c4c511a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -2129,7 +2129,9 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond)
>>                         continue;
>>
>>                 case BOND_LINK_UP:
>> -                       bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
>> +                       if (slave->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN)
>> +                               bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
>> +
>>                         bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_UP,
>> BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);
>>                         slave->last_link_up = jiffies;
> 	I don't believe the speed is necessarily SPEED_UNKNOWN coming in
> here.  If the race occurs at a time later than the initial enslavement,
> speed may already be set (and the race manifests if the new speed
> changes, i.e., the link changes from 1 Gb/sec to 10 Gb/sec), so I don't
> think this is functionally correct.
Hi, Jay

Thanks for your reply.

IMHO, "If the race occurs at a time later than the initial enslavement,
speed may already be set (and the race manifests if the new speed
changes, i.e., the link changes from 1 Gb/sec to 10 Gb/sec)", from my test,
this will not happen because the previous source code make the speed 
correct.

This "bond_update_speed_duplex" repeats to get the correct speed.

That is, this patch is to fix the error in initial enslavement. The 
mentioned scenario
will not occur.

Even though the performance impact is minimal, if we can avoid this 
performance
impact, why not ?

Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun

>
> 	Also, the call to bond_miimon_commit itself is already gated by
> bond_miimon_inspect finding a link state change.  The performance impact
> here should be minimal.
>
> 	-J
>
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com