[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1418653622-21105-8-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:24:21 +0000
From: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16.y-ckt 007/168] bonding: fix curr_active_slave/carrier with loadbalance arp monitoring
3.16.7-ckt3 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
commit b8e4500f42fe4464a33a887579147050bed8fcef upstream.
Since commit 6fde8f037e60 ("bonding: fix locking in
bond_loadbalance_arp_mon()") we can have a stale bond carrier state and
stale curr_active_slave when using arp monitoring in loadbalance modes. The
reason is that in bond_loadbalance_arp_mon() we can't have
do_failover == true but slave_state_changed == false, whenever do_failover
is true then slave_state_changed is also true. Then the following piece
from bond_loadbalance_arp_mon():
if (slave_state_changed) {
bond_slave_state_change(bond);
if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_XOR)
bond_update_slave_arr(bond, NULL);
} else if (do_failover) {
block_netpoll_tx();
bond_select_active_slave(bond);
unblock_netpoll_tx();
}
will execute only the first branch, always and regardless of do_failover.
Since these two events aren't related in such way, we need to decouple and
consider them separately.
For example this issue could lead to the following result:
Bonding Mode: load balancing (round-robin)
*MII Status: down*
MII Polling Interval (ms): 0
Up Delay (ms): 0
Down Delay (ms): 0
ARP Polling Interval (ms): 100
ARP IP target/s (n.n.n.n form): 192.168.9.2
Slave Interface: ens12
*MII Status: up*
Speed: 10000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 2
Permanent HW addr: 00:0f:53:01:42:2c
Slave queue ID: 0
Slave Interface: eth1
*MII Status: up*
Speed: Unknown
Duplex: Unknown
Link Failure Count: 70
Permanent HW addr: 52:54:00:2f:0f:8e
Slave queue ID: 0
Since some interfaces are up, then the status of the bond should also be
up, but it will never change unless something invokes bond_set_carrier()
(i.e. enslave, bond_select_active_slave etc). Now, if I force the
calling of bond_select_active_slave via for example changing
primary_reselect (it can change in any mode), then the MII status goes to
"up" because it calls bond_select_active_slave() which should've been done
from bond_loadbalance_arp_mon() itself.
CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
CC: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Fixes: 6fde8f037e60 ("bonding: fix locking in bond_loadbalance_arp_mon()")
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
Acked-by: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Acked-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
[ luis: backported to 3.16: used davem's backport to 3.17 ]
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 5f29c9a9a316..6c795cfd6bbc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -2505,9 +2505,9 @@ static void bond_loadbalance_arp_mon(struct work_struct *work)
if (!rtnl_trylock())
goto re_arm;
- if (slave_state_changed) {
+ if (slave_state_changed)
bond_slave_state_change(bond);
- } else if (do_failover) {
+ if (do_failover) {
/* the bond_select_active_slave must hold RTNL
* and curr_slave_lock for write.
*/
--
2.1.3
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists