| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:55:24 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] bonding: make ab_arp select active slaves
as other modes
Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:20:53PM CEST, fubar@...ibm.com wrote:
>Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>>Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:32:18AM CEST, fubar@...ibm.com wrote:
>>>Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>When I was implementing primary_passive option (formely named primary_lazy) I've
>>>>run into troubles with ab_arp. This is the only mode which is not using
>>>>bond_select_active_slave() function to select active slave and instead it
>>>>selects it itself. This seems to be not the right behaviour and it would be
>>>>better to do it in bond_select_active_slave() for all cases. This patch makes
>>>>this happen. Please review.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay in response; was out of the office.
>>>
>>> My first question is whether this affect the "current_arp_slave"
>>>behavior, i.e., the round-robining of the ARP probes when no slaves are
>>>active. Is that something you checked?
>>
>>Yes, according to my tests this behaves the same way as original code.
>>How about your tests?
>
> Yah, it seems to work like it should. I just have this nagging
>feeling I'm forgetting something; that there was a reason that the ab
>ARP was doing things differently. I sure don't remember, though;
>probably just getting old.
>
> The only nitpicks I see are a couple of changes that appear to
>be just for style ("break" changed to "continue"; some code rearranged
>in bond_find_best_slave, which is noted below) and one locking nit:
>strictly speaking, curr_slave_lock should be held for read when
>inspecting curr_active_slave. The place it happens, though, already
>holds rtnl, and all changes to curr_active_slave happen under rtnl, so
>it won't actually fail, but it's different than everywhere else.
Well I changed bond_ab_arp_commit to be similar to bond_miimon_commit. Therefor
changing breaks to continues, no curr_active_lock around
bond_select_active_slave etc.
I adjusted bond_find_best_slave to work with slave->link so this could be used
with arp too. I believe changes in this function are correct and my test results
are telling the same.
I hope I cleared all your comments :)
Jirka
>
> I've been gnawing on getting rid of curr_slave_lock for a while;
>I think it can go away, and be subsumed into the general bond->lock.
>The curr_active_slave is (today, this didn't used to be true) only
>changed under rtnl, but some other code does inspect it outside of rtnl.
I was looking on this several times but I haven't found a courage to actually
eliminate this lock... (and use rculists etc...) Maybe later :)
Jirka
>
> -J
>
>
>
>>Jirka
>>
>>>
>>> I'll give this a test tomorrow as well.
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>>---
>>> -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>>index 7c0e0bd..6ebd88d 100644
>>>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>>@@ -1093,15 +1093,8 @@ static struct slave *bond_find_best_slave(struct bonding *bond)
>>>> return NULL; /* still no slave, return NULL */
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>- /*
>>>>- * first try the primary link; if arping, a link must tx/rx
>>>>- * traffic before it can be considered the curr_active_slave.
>>>>- * also, we would skip slaves between the curr_active_slave
>>>>- * and primary_slave that may be up and able to arp
>>>>- */
>>>> if ((bond->primary_slave) &&
>>>>- (!bond->params.arp_interval) &&
>>>>- (IS_UP(bond->primary_slave->dev))) {
>>>>+ bond->primary_slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP) {
>>>> new_active = bond->primary_slave;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>@@ -1109,15 +1102,14 @@ static struct slave *bond_find_best_slave(struct bonding *bond)
>>>> old_active = new_active;
>>>>
>>>> bond_for_each_slave_from(bond, new_active, i, old_active) {
>>>>- if (IS_UP(new_active->dev)) {
>>>>- if (new_active->link == BOND_LINK_UP) {
>>>>- return new_active;
>>>>- } else if (new_active->link == BOND_LINK_BACK) {
>>>>- /* link up, but waiting for stabilization */
>>>>- if (new_active->delay < mintime) {
>>>>- mintime = new_active->delay;
>>>>- bestslave = new_active;
>>>>- }
>>>>+ if (new_active->link == BOND_LINK_UP) {
>>>>+ return new_active;
>>>>+ } else if (new_active->link == BOND_LINK_BACK &&
>>>>+ IS_UP(new_active->dev)) {
>>>>+ /* link up, but waiting for stabilization */
>>>>+ if (new_active->delay < mintime) {
>>>>+ mintime = new_active->delay;
>>>>+ bestslave = new_active;
>>>
>>> Is there a functional reason for rearranging this (i.e., did the
>>>use of select_active_slave need this for some reason)?
>>>
>>>
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>@@ -2929,18 +2921,6 @@ static int bond_ab_arp_inspect(struct bonding *bond, int delta_in_ticks)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>- read_lock(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>-
>>>>- /*
>>>>- * Trigger a commit if the primary option setting has changed.
>>>>- */
>>>>- if (bond->primary_slave &&
>>>>- (bond->primary_slave != bond->curr_active_slave) &&
>>>>- (bond->primary_slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP))
>>>>- commit++;
>>>>-
>>>>- read_unlock(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>-
>>>> return commit;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>@@ -2961,90 +2941,58 @@ static void bond_ab_arp_commit(struct bonding *bond, int delta_in_ticks)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> case BOND_LINK_UP:
>>>>- write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>-
>>>>- if (!bond->curr_active_slave &&
>>>>- time_before_eq(jiffies, dev_trans_start(slave->dev) +
>>>>- delta_in_ticks)) {
>>>>+ if ((!bond->curr_active_slave &&
>>>>+ time_before_eq(jiffies,
>>>>+ dev_trans_start(slave->dev) +
>>>>+ delta_in_ticks)) ||
>>>>+ bond->curr_active_slave != slave) {
>>>> slave->link = BOND_LINK_UP;
>>>>- bond_change_active_slave(bond, slave);
>>>> bond->current_arp_slave = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> pr_info(DRV_NAME
>>>>- ": %s: %s is up and now the "
>>>>- "active interface\n",
>>>>- bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
>>>>-
>>>>- } else if (bond->curr_active_slave != slave) {
>>>>- /* this slave has just come up but we
>>>>- * already have a current slave; this can
>>>>- * also happen if bond_enslave adds a new
>>>>- * slave that is up while we are searching
>>>>- * for a new slave
>>>>- */
>>>>- slave->link = BOND_LINK_UP;
>>>>- bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(slave);
>>>>- bond->current_arp_slave = NULL;
>>>>+ ": %s: link status definitely "
>>>>+ "up for interface %s.\n",
>>>>+ bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
>>>>
>>>>- pr_info(DRV_NAME
>>>>- ": %s: backup interface %s is now up\n",
>>>>- bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
>>>>- }
>>>>+ if (!bond->curr_active_slave ||
>>>>+ (slave == bond->primary_slave))
>>>>+ goto do_failover;
>>>>
>>>>- write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>+ }
>>>>
>>>>- break;
>>>>+ continue;
>>>>
>>>> case BOND_LINK_DOWN:
>>>> if (slave->link_failure_count < UINT_MAX)
>>>> slave->link_failure_count++;
>>>>
>>>> slave->link = BOND_LINK_DOWN;
>>>>+ bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(slave);
>>>>
>>>>- if (slave == bond->curr_active_slave) {
>>>>- pr_info(DRV_NAME
>>>>- ": %s: link status down for active "
>>>>- "interface %s, disabling it\n",
>>>>- bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
>>>>-
>>>>- bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(slave);
>>>>-
>>>>- write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>-
>>>>- bond_select_active_slave(bond);
>>>>- if (bond->curr_active_slave)
>>>>- bond->curr_active_slave->jiffies =
>>>>- jiffies;
>>>>-
>>>>- write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>+ pr_info(DRV_NAME
>>>>+ ": %s: link status definitely down for "
>>>>+ "interface %s, disabling it\n",
>>>>+ bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
>>>>
>>>>+ if (slave == bond->curr_active_slave) {
>>>> bond->current_arp_slave = NULL;
>>>>-
>>>>- } else if (slave->state == BOND_STATE_BACKUP) {
>>>>- pr_info(DRV_NAME
>>>>- ": %s: backup interface %s is now down\n",
>>>>- bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
>>>>-
>>>>- bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(slave);
>>>>+ goto do_failover;
>>>> }
>>>>- break;
>>>>+
>>>>+ continue;
>>>>
>>>> default:
>>>> pr_err(DRV_NAME
>>>> ": %s: impossible: new_link %d on slave %s\n",
>>>> bond->dev->name, slave->new_link,
>>>> slave->dev->name);
>>>>+ continue;
>>>> }
>>>>- }
>>>>
>>>>- /*
>>>>- * No race with changes to primary via sysfs, as we hold rtnl.
>>>>- */
>>>>- if (bond->primary_slave &&
>>>>- (bond->primary_slave != bond->curr_active_slave) &&
>>>>- (bond->primary_slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP)) {
>>>>+do_failover:
>>>>+ ASSERT_RTNL();
>>>> write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>>- bond_change_active_slave(bond, bond->primary_slave);
>>>>+ bond_select_active_slave(bond);
>>>> write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists