linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] net/bonding: send arp in interval if no active slave

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]

Message-ID: <5617DC85.8000804@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:25:57 +0200
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Uwe Koziolek <uwe.koziolek@...knee.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net/bonding: send arp in interval if no active slave

On 10/09/2015 04:36 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
> ...
>> As Andy already stated I'm not a fan of such workarounds either but it's
>> necessary sometimes so if this is going to be actually considered then a
>> few things need to be fixed. Please make this a proper bonding option
>> which can be changed at runtime and not only via a module parameter.
> 
> Is there any particular userspace tool that would need some updating, or is adding the sysfs knobs sufficient here? I think I've got all the sysfs stuff thrown together now, but still need to test.
> 
I'd say adding netlink support at this point is more important, and it'd be nice
if you can add support to iproute2 for the new attribute. Currently all bonding
options have both netlink and sysfs support, so you can follow that, the others
can correct me if I'm wrong here.

One more thing please don't forget to update Documentation/networking/bonding.txt

> 
>>> Now, I saw that you've only tested with 500 ms, can't this be fixed by
>>> using
>>> a different interval ? This seems like a very specific problem to have a
>>> whole new option for.
>>
>> ...I'll wait until we've heard confirmation from Uwe that intervals
>> other than 500ms don't fix things.
> 
> Okay, so I believe the "only tested with 500ms" was in reference to testing with Uwe's initial patch. I do have supporting evidence in a bugzilla report that shows upwards of 5000ms still experience the problem here.
_5 seconds_ are not enough to receive a reply, but sending it twice
in a second fixes the issue ?!
This sounds like the ARP request is not properly handled/received
and there's no reply.

Cheers,
 Nik

--
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/