linux-kernel - Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - bisected

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:51:12 -0800
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>, aowi@...ozymes.com
Subject: Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - bisected - twice

Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc> wrote:

>Jesper Krogh wrote:
>> I appreciate that you spend time on it, but my feeling is that it
>> definately isn't reproducible in all environments (otherwise we would
>> probably have seen a large cry by now).
>>
>> I'm trying to bisect the "fix" down and hope that'll tell us something
>> more.
>
>Ok, The fixing commit seems to be: cb52deba12f27af90a46d2f8667a64888118a888
>
>Applying it to 2.6.28.7 and 2.6.27.19 makes them both work.
>
>It also explains why my e1000 based bonds didnt break, allthough the
>commitmessage doesnt mention anything about how it should effect
>bonding. Wouldn't it make sense to propose this patch for 2.6.27 and
>2.6.28 stable kernels?

	Perhaps.

	I don't have a forcedeth to test with, and as you surmised, I
was unable to reproduce the problem with other chipsets (tg3 or e1000).

	However, I did find another bug I introduced during the "mii
refactor" patch that you mentioned as being the original source of the
problem.  That bug will cause 802.3ad to not notice speed changes.

	Could you test the patch below on your 2.6.68.7 and/or 2.6.27.19
and see if it resolves your problem (without the forcedeth patch)?

	-J

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 2c96b93..ad81474 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -3545,11 +3545,27 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event, struct net_device *slave
 		}
 		break;
 	case NETDEV_CHANGE:
-		/*
-		 * TODO: is this what we get if somebody
-		 * sets up a hierarchical bond, then rmmod's
-		 * one of the slave bonding devices?
-		 */
+		if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_8023AD ||
+		    bond_is_lb(bond)) {
+			struct slave *slave;
+
+			slave = bond_get_slave_by_dev(bond, slave_dev);
+			if (slave) {
+				u16 old_speed = slave->speed;
+				u16 old_duplex = slave->duplex;
+
+				bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
+
+				if (bond_is_lb(bond))
+					break;
+
+				if (old_speed != slave->speed)
+					bond_3ad_adapter_speed_changed(slave);
+				if (old_duplex != slave->duplex)
+					bond_3ad_adapter_duplex_changed(slave);
+			}
+		}
+
 		break;
 	case NETDEV_DOWN:
 		/*


---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/