netdev - Re: bonding: time limits too tight in bond_ab_arp

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:	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:54:13 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To:	Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
CC:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: bonding: time limits too tight in bond_ab_arp_inspect

On 08/22/2012 11:45 AM, Jiri Bohac wrote:

> This code is run from bond_activebackup_arp_mon() about
> delta_in_ticks jiffies after the previous ARP probe has been
> sent. If the delayed work gets executed exactly in delta_in_ticks
> jiffies, there is a chance the slave will be brought up.  If the
> delayed work runs one jiffy later, the slave will stay down.

<snip>

> Should they perhaps all be increased by, say, delta_in_ticks/2, to make this
> less dependent on the current scheduling latencies?

We have been using a patch that tracks the arpmon requested sleep time 
vs the actual sleep time and adds any scheduling latency to the allowed 
delta.  That way if we sleep too long due to scheduling latency it 
doesn't affect the calculation.

Chris
--
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