Message-ID: <4D779CA2.1050302@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:28:34 +0100
From:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
CC:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: reinject arps into bonding slave	instead
 of master

Le 09/03/2011 16:09, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
> Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:49:49PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>> Le 09/03/2011 08:45, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>>> Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:44:37PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>>>> Le 08/03/2011 14:42, Andy Gospodarek a écrit :
>>>>> I'm pretty sure this patch will have the same catastrophic problem your
>>>>> last one did.  By cloning and setting skb2->dev = orig_dev you just
>>>>> inserted a frame identical to the one we received right back into the
>>>>> stack.  It only took a few minutes for my box to melt as one frame on
>>>>> the wire will cause an infinite number of frames to be received by the
>>>>> stack.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Andy. We still keep one reinject (netif_rx), which is
>>>> probably better that two (__netif_receive_skb), but not enough.
>>>>
>>>> I really think we need a general framework for late delivery of final
>>>> packets to packet handler registered somewhere in the rx_handler
>>>> path.
>>>>
>>>> Jiri, is this patch the one you announced as "I have some kind nice
>>>> solution in mind and I'm going to submit that as a patch later (too
>>>> many patches are in the wind atm)" ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not had time to verify my thought yet but I think that the only
>>> think needed against my original patch (bonding: move processing of recv
>>> handlers into handle_frame()) is ro remove vlan_on_bond_hook, period.
>>>
>>> Because all incoming arps are seen by bond_handle_frame =>
>>> bond->recv_probe , even vlan ones - that would make eth0-bond0-bond0.5
>>> work and eth0-bond0-br0-bond0.5 as well. But again, need to verify this.
>>
>> All incoming ARPs are seen by bond_handle_frame, even vlan ones, definitely true.
>>
>> But as some of them *are* vlan ones, you will have to untag those "by hand" inside bond_handle_frame.
>

> Hmm. For hw vlan accel this would not be needed.

Agreed.

> But for non-hw-vlan-accel the frame is wrapped when going thru handle_frame. And yes, in that
> case untagging would be necessary. Unless the vlan untagging happening now in ptype_base handler
> is moved in rx path somewhere before __netif_receive_skb.

Can't it me moved not before, but inside __netif_receive_skb, as a rx_handler?

At the time we setup eth0.100, we can arrange for a vlan_untag rx_handler to be registered on eth0. 
This is exactly the way it works now for macvlan. Should it be possible (and desirable) for vlan too?

This might re-open the discussion about the need for several rx_handlers per interface, but that is 
another story.

Also, moving it before __netif_receive_skb would cause every protocol handlers to receive the frame 
untagged. At least protocol sniffers registered at ptype_all may want to receive the tagged frame, 
for diagnostic purpose.

That would result in two things:
>
> 1) Bond would be able to scope vlan packets
> 2) The rx path for hw-vlan-accel and non-hw-vlan-accel would be the same
>     (should be desirable + one reinjection would be avoided for
>      non-hw-vlan-accel)

Agreed, but moving it inside __netif_receive_skb should have the same effects. If we move 
non-hw-accel-vlan to a rx_handler, the skb would be COW before being untagged only if shared. This 
sounds good to me.

	Nicolas.
--
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