netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under bond

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]

Message-ID: <1319796053.23112.92.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:00:53 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	jesse@...ira.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
	hans.schillstrom@...csson.com, jpirko@...hat.com,
	mbizon@...ebox.fr, netdev@...r.kernel.org, fubar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under
 bond

Le mardi 18 octobre 2011 à 23:47 -0400, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:22:02 -0700
> 
> > Actually, for most of 2.6.x the behavior was somewhat
> > non-deterministic since it depended on kernel version and the NIC.  As
> > a result, I think we can safely say that this wasn't a particularly
> > firm interface that we have to be wedded to.  Based on overwhelming
> > feedback, I think the interface in this patch is the preferred one and
> > what we should stabilize on.
> 
> Agreed, and I've applied this patch to net-next, thanks everyone!

Hmm.

Oh well, this broke my setup, a very basic one.

eth1 and eth2 on a bonding device, bond0, active-backup

some vlans on top of bond0, say vlan.103

$ ip link show dev vlan.103
8: vlan.103@...d0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc
pfifo_fast state UP qlen 100
    link/ether 00:1e:0b:ec:d3:d2 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff


arp_rcv() now gets packets with skb->type PACKET_OTHERHOST and drops
such packets.

     [000] 52870.115435: skb_gro_reset_offset <-napi_gro_receive
     [000] 52870.115435: dev_gro_receive <-napi_gro_receive
     [000] 52870.115435: napi_skb_finish <-napi_gro_receive
     [000] 52870.115435: netif_receive_skb <-napi_skb_finish
     [000] 52870.115435: get_rps_cpu <-netif_receive_skb
     [000] 52870.115435: __netif_receive_skb <-netif_receive_skb
     [000] 52870.115436: vlan_do_receive <-__netif_receive_skb
     [000] 52870.115436: bond_handle_frame <-__netif_receive_skb
     [000] 52870.115436: vlan_do_receive <-__netif_receive_skb
     [000] 52870.115436: arp_rcv <-__netif_receive_skb
     [000] 52870.115436: kfree_skb <-arp_rcv
     [000] 52870.115437: __kfree_skb <-kfree_skb
     [000] 52870.115437: skb_release_head_state <-__kfree_skb
     [000] 52870.115437: skb_release_data <-__kfree_skb
     [000] 52870.115437: kfree <-skb_release_data
     [000] 52870.115437: kmem_cache_free <-__kfree_skb


By the way, we have no SNMP counter here so I spent some time to track
this. I'll send a patch for this.

If this host initiates the trafic, all is well.

Please guys, can we get back ARP or revert this patch ?

Thanks


--
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