netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bonding: reset the slave's mtu when its be changed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140114060322.GA2430@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:03:22 +0100
From:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Cc:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bonding: reset the slave's mtu when its be changed

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:11:45AM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>On 2014/1/12 13:18, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> On 2014/1/10 20:19, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 07:32:51PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> All slave should have the same mtu with mastet's, and the bond do it when
>>>> enslave the slave, but the user could change the slave's mtu, it will cause
>>>> the master and slave have different mtu, althrough in AB mode, it does not
>>>> matter if the slave is not the current slave, but in other mode, it is incorrect,
>>>> so reset the slave's mtu like the master set.
>>>
>>> Why "net"? It's not a bugfix, it's a feature, and really discussable.
>>>
>>> Also, wrt the actual change - why do you think it's incorrect for slaves in
>>> bonding mode other than AB to have different MTU values? I don't see any
>>> reason for it, from the top of the head.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I will test more situation for every mode when slave's mtu changed, I am not sure
>> what will happened yet, if some links was interrupt, I thinks it is a bug.
>>
>>>>
>
>I have test several mode for bonding when the slave mtu changed:
>
>RR(0)	0<mtu<1500 		ok
>AB(1)	0<mtu<1500		loss packets
>XOR(2)	0<mtu<1500		ok
>Broadcast(3)	0<mtu<1500	ok
>LACP		0<mtu<1500	loss packets
>
>
>so I think we should not let the mtu set for slave.

Why do you see lost packets?

>
--
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