[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220222152815.1056ca24@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:28:15 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: vlan: allow vlan device MTU change follow real
device from smaller to bigger
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:37:33 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote:
> What about an explicit option:
>
> ip link add link eth1 dev eth1.100 type vlan id 100 follow-parent-mtu
>
>
> Or for something more future proof, an option that can accept several
> policies:
>
> mtu-update <reduce-only,follow,...>
>
> reduce-only (default):
> update vlan's MTU only if the new MTU is smaller than the
> current one (current behaviour).
>
> follow:
> always follow the MTU of the parent device.
>
> Then if anyone wants more complex policies:
>
> follow-if-not-modified:
> follow the MTU of the parent device as long as the VLAN's MTU
> was not manually changed. Otherwise only adjust the VLAN's MTU
> when the parent's one is set to a smaller value.
>
> follow-if-not-modified-but-not-quite:
> like follow-if-not-modified but revert back to the VLAN's
> last manually modified MTU, if any, whenever possible (that is,
> when the parent device's MTU is set back to a higher value).
> That probably requires the possibility to dump the last
> modified MTU, so the administrator can anticipate the
> consequences of modifying the parent device.
>
> yet-another-policy (because people have a lot of imagination):
> for example, keep the MTU 4 bytes lower than the parent device,
> to account for VLAN overhead.
>
> Of course feel free to suggest better names and policies :).
>
> This way, we can keep the current behaviour and avoid unexpected
> heuristics that are difficult to explain (and even more difficult for
> network admins to figure out on their own).
My $0.02 would be that if we want to make changes that require new uAPI
we should do it across uppers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists