netdev - Re: [RFC] bonding: add better ipv6 failover support

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

Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:55:13 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
Cc:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>,
	Alex Sidorenko <alexandre.sidorenko@...com>,
	fubar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bonding: add better ipv6 failover support

Brian Haley wrote:
> David Stevens wrote:
>> 1) You're calling mld_send_report() directly, which will send the MLD
>>         report synchronously. It should use the randomized timer (see
>> igmp6_join_group).
>>         A mass failover (e.g., a power event in a cluster) would blast
>> all of these at once,
>>         which is why the randomized timer is required for gratuitous
>> reports. This
>>         should use a randomized timer, like mld_ifc_start_timer(), but
>> joining the
>>         group all by itself will do that.
> 
> Ok, I'll try and change this code to spin through all the multicast
> addresses on the master and call igmp6_join_group() instead.

I think you would need to call igmp6_leave_group before switching the active
and then join group on the new active.

> 
>> 2) There is already a configurable and code for unsolicited neighbor
>> advertisements
>>         when adding an address-- why not use that? In fact, wouldn't
>> just moving the
>>         failing device's address list to the new device do everything
>> you want, since
>>         adding an address already sends unsolicited neighbor
>> advertisements,
>>         joins the solicited node address, etc.? Or am I missing
>> something?
> 
> In this case the address is configured on the bond master, each slave is
> just used for transmit/receive.  While I could have sent an unsolicited
> NA, sending an NS is much easier, especially since it's only notifying
> the switch that the address has moved.

Why?  NS and NA take exactly the same code paths.  The only difference
appears to be source address lookup, but you don't need to worry about it
since you know the source address ahead of time.

-vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html