netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: Do not try to send packets over dead link in TLB mode.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF2d9jis_j5cn=NBmOub4WGU7cmVwxEKP-Zp88WUCc+uUFBDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:21:04 -0700
From:	Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Maciej Zenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: Do not try to send packets over dead link in TLB mode.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 09:34 -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote:
>>
>
> Please make sure to not send HTML message on netdev Mahesh, your message
> was not delivered to the list.
>>
Gmail seems to be having issues remembering my settings about the text
vs. html preference and many times in the flow, I forget to check if
the mode selected is correct jsut before sending the mail. :(

>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> wrote:
>>         On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 18:09 -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote:
>>         > In TLB mode if tlb_dynamic_lb is NOT set, slaves from the
>>         bond
>>         > group are selected based on the hash distribution. This does
>>         not
>>         > exclude dead links which are part of the bond. Also if there
>>         is a
>>         > temporary link event which brings down the interface,
>>         packets
>>         > hashed on that interface would be dropped too.
>>         >
>>         > This patch fixes these issues and distributes flows across
>>         the
>>         > UP links only. Also the array construction of links which
>>         are
>>         > capable of sending packets happen in the control path
>>         leaving
>>         > only link-selection duing the data-path.
>>
>>
>>         s/duing/during/
>>
>>         Seems a speed improvement as well for bonding of 8 slaves ;)
>>
>>
>>         >
>>         > One possible side effect of this is - at a link event; all
>>         > flows will be shuffled to get good distribution. But impact
>>         of
>>         > this should be minimum with the assumption that a member or
>>         > members of the bond group are not available is a very
>>         temporary
>>         > situation.
>>         >
>>         > Signed-off-by: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
>>         > ---
>>         >  drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 52
>>         +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>         >  drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.h | 11 +++++++++
>>         >  drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h  |  6 +++++
>>         >  3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>         >
>>         > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>>         b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>>         > index 76c0dade233f..1f39d41fde4b 100644
>>         > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>>         > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>>         > @@ -195,6 +195,9 @@ static int tlb_initialize(struct bonding
>>         *bond)
>>         >
>>         >       _unlock_tx_hashtbl_bh(bond);
>>         >
>>         > +     /* Initialize the TLB array spin-lock */
>>         > +     spin_lock_init(&bond_info->slave_arr_lock);
>>         > +
>>         >       return 0;
>>         >  }
>>         >
>>         > @@ -209,6 +212,9 @@ static void tlb_deinitialize(struct
>>         bonding *bond)
>>         >       bond_info->tx_hashtbl = NULL;
>>         >
>>         >       _unlock_tx_hashtbl_bh(bond);
>>         > +
>>         > +     if (bond_is_nondyn_tlb(bond) && bond_info->slave_arr)
>>         > +             kfree_rcu(bond_info->slave_arr, rcu);
>>
>>
>>         You could remove the first condition, as slave_arr being NULL
>>         or not is
>>         enough to take the decision to call kfree_rcu()
>>
>>         I do not know if a the "bond_is_nondyn_tlb(bond)" can change
>>         over the
>>         time for a given bonding device, so feel uncomfortable with a
>>         possible
>>         memleak here.
>>
>> It can not change while the bond device is up. It checks for the
>> bonding mode and the parameter tlb_dynamic_lb and none of them can be
>> changed without bringing down the bond.
>>
>>
>> I wanted to add it as a safe-guard against trying to free this array
>> in other mode if there are some random bytes present (which is
>> unlikely but having an extra check to full-proof is not going to hurt
>> was the thinking behind it).
>>
> Well, field is guaranteed to be NULL at bonding init time, otherwise you
> would crash at first kfree_rcu()
>
I can remove the check.
--
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