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  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:	Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:00:57 +0000
From:	"Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
To:	"Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
	Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>,
	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: igb + balance-rr + bridge + IPv6 = no go without promiscuous
 mode



>-----Original Message-----
>From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org]
>On Behalf Of Wyborny, Carolyn
>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:24 PM
>To: Chris Boot; Nicolas de Pesloüan
>Cc: netdev; e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>Subject: RE: igb + balance-rr + bridge + IPv6 = no go without
>promiscuous mode
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-
>owner@...r.kernel.org]
>>On Behalf Of Chris Boot
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:53 PM
>>To: Nicolas de Pesloüan
>>Cc: netdev
>>Subject: Re: igb + balance-rr + bridge + IPv6 = no go without
>>promiscuous mode
>>
>>On 23/12/2011 10:56, Chris Boot wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2011 10:48, Nicolas de Pesloüan wrote:
>>>> [ Forwarded to netdev, because two previous e-mail erroneously sent
>>in
>>>> HTML ]
>>>>
>>>> Le 23/12/2011 11:15, Chris Boot a écrit :
>>>>> On 23/12/2011 09:52, Nicolas de Pesloüan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 23 déc. 2011 10:42, "Chris Boot" <bootc@...tc.net
>>>>>> <mailto:bootc@...tc.net>> a écrit :
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hi folks,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As per Eric Dumazet and Dave Miller, I'm opening up a separate
>>>>>> thread on this issue.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I have two identical servers in a cluster for running KVM
>virtual
>>>>>> machines. They each have a
>>>>>> single connection to the Internet (irrelevant for this) and two
>>>>>> gigabit connections between each
>>>>>> other for cluster replication, etc... These two connections are in
>>a
>>>>>> balance-rr bonded connection,
>>>>>> which is itself member of a bridge that the VMs attach to. I'm
>>>>>> running v3.2-rc6-140-gb9e26df on
>>>>>> Debian Wheezy.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > When the bridge is brought up, IPv4 works fine but IPv6 does
>not.
>>>>>> I can use neither the
>>>>>> automatic link-local on the brid ge nor the static global address
>I
>>>>>> assign. Neither machine can
>>>>>> perform neighbour discovery over the link until I put the bond
>>>>>> members (eth0 and eth1) into
>>>>>> promiscuous mode. I can do this either with tcpdump or 'ip link
>set
>>>>>> dev ethX promisc on' and this
>>>>>> is enough to make the link spring to life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For as far as I remember, setting bond0 to promisc should set the
>>>>>> bonding member to promisc too.
>>>>>> And inserting bond0 into br0 should set bond0 to promisc... So
>>>>>> everything should be in promisc
>>>>>> mode anyway... but you shoudn't have to do it by hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I should have added that I tried this. Setting bond0 or br0
>>to
>>>>> promisc has no effect. I
>>>>> discovered this by running tcpdump on br0 first, then bond0, then
>>>>> eventually each bond member in
>>>>> turn. Only at the last stage did things jump to life.
>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This cluster is not currently live so I can easily test patches
>>>>>> and various configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you try to remove the bonding part, connecting eth0 and eth1
>>>>>> directly to br0 and see if it
>>>>>> works better? (This is a test ony. I perfectly understand that you
>>>>>> would loose balance-rr in this
>>>>>> setup.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good call. Let's see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I took br0 and bond0 apart, took eth0 and eth1 out of enforced
>>>>> promisc mode, then manually built a
>>>>> br0 with eth0 in only so I didn't cause a network loop. Adding eth0
>>>>> to br0 did not make it go into
>>>>> promisc mode, but IPv6 does work over this setup. I also made sure
>>ip
>>>>> -6 neigh was empty on both
>>>>> machines before I started.
>>>>>
>>>>> I then decided to try the test with just the bond0 in balance-rr
>>>>> mode. Once again I took everything
>>>>> down and ensured no promisc mode and no ip -6 neigh. I noticed
>bond0
>>>>> wasn't getting a link-local and
>>>>> I found out for some reason
>>>>> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/bond0/disable_ipv6 was set on both servers
>>so I
>>>>> set it to 0. That brought things to life.
>>>>>
>>>>> So then I put it all back together again and it didn't work. I once
>>>>> again noticed disable_ipv6 was
>>>>> set on the bond0 interfaces, now part of the bridge. Toggling this
>>on
>>>>> the _bond_ interface made
>>>>> things work again.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's setting disable_ipv6? Should this be having an impact if the
>>>>> port is part of a bridge?
>>>
>>> Hmm, as a further update... I brought up my VMs on the bridge with
>>> disable_ipv6 turned off. The VMs on one host couldn't see what was on
>>> the other side of the bridge (on the other server) until I turned
>>> promisc back on manually. So it's not entirely disable_ipv6's fault.
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I don't want this to get lost around the Christmas break, so I'm just
>>resending it. I'm still seeing the same behaviour as before.
>>
>> From above:
>>
>>>>>> For as far as I remember, setting bond0 to promisc should set the
>>>>>> bonding member to promisc too.
>>>>>> And inserting bond0 into br0 should set bond0 to promisc... So
>>>>>> everything should be in promisc
>>>>>> mode anyway... but you shoudn't have to do it by hand.
>>
>>This definitely doesn't happen, at least according to 'ip link show |
>>grep PROMISC'.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>--
>>Chris Boot
>>bootc@...tc.net
>>--
>>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
>
>Sorry for the delay in responding.  I'm not sure what is going on here
>and I'm not our bonding expert who is still out on holidays.  However,
>we'll try to reproduce this.  When I get some more advice, I may be
>asking for some more data.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carolyn
>Carolyn Wyborny
>Linux Development
>LAN Access Division
>Intel Corporation
>N�����r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�)޺{.n�+���z�^�)���w*
>jg���.�����ݢj/���z�ޖ��2�ޙ���&�)ߡ�a����.�G���h�.�j:+v���w�٥

Hello,

Check your ip_forward configuration on your bridge to make sure its configured to forward ipv6 packets and also please send the contents of /etc/modprobe.d/bonding.conf and the contents of your routing table and we'll continue to work on this.

Thanks,

Carolyn

Carolyn Wyborny
Linux Development
LAN Access Division
Intel Corporation


Powered by blists - more mailing lists