linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH RFC] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:36:19 +0000
From: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
To: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>,
        "j.vosburgh@...il.com"
	<j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        "andy@...yhouse.net" <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com"
	<edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com>,
        Rama
 Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>,
        Manjunath Patil
	<manjunath.b.patil@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages

Hi,
I've forgot to remove RFC in the subject line. Will remove it and re-send another copy.

-
Praveen.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Praveen Kumar Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
> Sent: 19 February 2024 05:02 PM
> To: j.vosburgh@...il.com; andy@...yhouse.net; davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org;
> pabeni@...hat.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com>; Rama Nichanamatlu
> <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>; Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@...clecom>; Praveen Kannoju
> <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
> Subject: [PATCH RFC] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages
> 
> Through the routine bond_mii_monitor(), bonding driver inspects and commits the slave state changes. During the times when slave
> state change and failure in aqcuiring rtnl lock happen at the same time, the routine bond_mii_monitor() reschedules itself to come
> around after 1 msec to commit the new state.
> 
> During this, it executes the routine bond_miimon_inspect() to re-inspect the state chane and prints the corresponding slave state on
> to the console. Hence we do see a message at every 1 msec till the rtnl lock is acquired and state chage is committed.
> 
> This patch doesn't change how bond functions. It only simply limits this kind of log flood.
> 
> v2: Use exising net_ratelimit() instead of introducing new rate-limit parameter.
> 
> v3: Commit message is modified to provide summary of the issue, because of which rate-limiting the bonding driver messages is
> needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Kumar Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c index 4e0600c..e92eba1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -2610,12 +2610,13 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
>  			commit++;
>  			slave->delay = bond->params.downdelay;
>  			if (slave->delay) {
> -				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down for %sinterface, disabling it in %d ms\n",
> -					   (BOND_MODE(bond) ==
> -					    BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) ?
> -					    (bond_is_active_slave(slave) ?
> -					     "active " : "backup ") : "",
> -					   bond->params.downdelay * bond->params.miimon);
> +				if (net_ratelimit())
> +					slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down for %sinterface, disabling it in %d ms\n",
> +						   (BOND_MODE(bond) ==
> +						   BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) ?
> +						   (bond_is_active_slave(slave) ?
> +						   "active " : "backup ") : "",
> +						   bond->params.downdelay * bond->params.miimon);
>  			}
>  			fallthrough;
>  		case BOND_LINK_FAIL:
> @@ -2623,9 +2624,10 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
>  				/* recovered before downdelay expired */
>  				bond_propose_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_UP);
>  				slave->last_link_up = jiffies;
> -				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up again after %d ms\n",
> -					   (bond->params.downdelay - slave->delay) *
> -					   bond->params.miimon);
> +				if (net_ratelimit())
> +					slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up again after %d ms\n",
> +						   (bond->params.downdelay - slave->delay) *
> +						   bond->params.miimon);
>  				commit++;
>  				continue;
>  			}
> @@ -2648,18 +2650,20 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
>  			slave->delay = bond->params.updelay;
> 
>  			if (slave->delay) {
> -				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up, enabling it in %d ms\n",
> -					   ignore_updelay ? 0 :
> -					   bond->params.updelay *
> -					   bond->params.miimon);
> +				if (net_ratelimit())
> +					slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up, enabling it in %d ms\n",
> +						   ignore_updelay ? 0 :
> +						   bond->params.updelay *
> +						   bond->params.miimon);
>  			}
>  			fallthrough;
>  		case BOND_LINK_BACK:
>  			if (!link_state) {
>  				bond_propose_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_DOWN);
> -				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down again after %d ms\n",
> -					   (bond->params.updelay - slave->delay) *
> -					   bond->params.miimon);
> +				if (net_ratelimit())
> +					slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down again after %d ms\n",
> +						   (bond->params.updelay - slave->delay) *
> +						   bond->params.miimon);
>  				commit++;
>  				continue;
>  			}
> --
> 1.8.3.1