netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bonding: only rely on arp packets if arp monitor is used

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: <20140115.220132.1518410490710218099.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:01:32 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	fubar@...ibm.com
Cc:	vfalico@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bonding: only rely on arp packets if arp
 monitor is used

From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:09:57 -0800

> 	The main reason for preserving the non-validate behavior (any
> traffic counts) is for the loadbalance (xor and rr) modes.  In those
> modes, the switch decides which slave receives the incoming traffic, and
> so it's to our advantage to permit any incoming traffic to count for
> "up-ness."  The arp_validate option is not allowed in these modes
> because it won't work.
> 
> 	With these changes, I suspect that the loadbalance ARP monitor
> will be less reliable with these changes (granted that it's already a
> bit dodgy in its dependence on the switch to hit all slaves with
> incoming packets regularly).  Particularly if the switch ports are
> configured into an Etherchannel ("static link aggregation") group, in
> which case only one slave will receive any given frame (broadcast /
> multicast traffic will not be duplicated across all slaves).
> 
> 	I'm not sure that this change (the "only count ARPs even without
> arp_validate" bit) won't break existing configurations.  Did you test
> the -rr and -xor modes with ARP monitor after your changes (with and
> without configuring a channel group on the switch ports)?

Sorry Jay, I only read this just now.  I won't push these changes
out until you've had some time to discuss them.

To my untrained eye they looked rather straightforward :-)
--
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