netdev - Re: [PATCH net] failover: eliminate callback hell

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:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:19:30 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] failover: eliminate callback hell

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:51:18PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I think the push back was with the usage of the delay, not bringing up the primary/standby
> > device in the name change event handler.
> > Can't netvsc use this mechanism instead of depending on the delay?
> > 
> > 
> 
> The patch that was rejected for netvsc was about using name change.

So failover is now doing exactly what you wanted netvsc to do.  Rather
than reverting everyone to old behaviour how about using more pieces
from failover?

> Also, you can't depend on name change; you still need a timer. Not all distributions
> change name of devices.

So failover chose not to implement the delayed open so far.
If it does I suspect we'll have to keep it around forever -
kind of like netvsc seems to be stuck with it.
But let's see if there's enough actual demand from people running
ancient distros with latest kernels to even start looking for
a solution for failover.

And this kind of behaviour change really should be split out
so we can discuss it separately.

> Or user has blocked that by udev rules.

Don't do that then?

-- 
MST