[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150221025541.GA1332@gospo.home.greyhouse.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 21:55:41 -0500
From: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: ban stacked bonding support
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:14:00PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
>
> >Does Linux support it at all?
> >
> >In short: if you add bonding master as a slave, and then release it,
> >it will no longer be a IFF_BONDING creating problems like described at
> >https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89541
> >
> > echo +bond1 >/sys/class/net/bonding_masters
> > echo 1 >/sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/mode
> > echo +bond2 >/sys/class/net/bonding_masters
> > echo +bond2 >/sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/slaves
> > echo -bond2 >/sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/slaves
> > echo -bond2 >/sys/class/net/bonding_masters
> >
> > cat /proc/net/bonding/bond2 # should not exist
> > [oops]
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
>
> I think it's time to disallow stacking like this; it never
> really worked quite right as far as I can remember, and I thought it was
> disallowed at some point in the past. I don't believe the stacked bonds
> function correctly for receive in the current kernel, either, although
> I'd have to test it again to confirm that.
>
> The usual case for desiring to stack bonds is an active-backup
> pair of LACP / 802.3ad bonds (such as the bugzilla referenced above),
> but the 802.3ad mode handles this situation internally, so no stack is
> necessary.
Completely agree.
>
> >---
> >
> > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> >--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> >+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> >@@ -1248,6 +1248,11 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev)
> > slave_dev->name);
> > }
> >
> >+ if (slave_dev->flags & IFF_MASTER) {
> >+ netdev_dbg(bond_dev, "stacked bonding not supported\n");
> >+ return -EBUSY;
> >+ }
> >+
> > /* already enslaved */
> > if (slave_dev->flags & IFF_SLAVE) {
> > netdev_dbg(bond_dev, "Error: Device was already enslaved\n");
>
> Instead of a separate block for IFF_MASTER, the IFF_SLAVE line
> could be replaced with something like:
>
> if (netif_is_bond_slave(slave_dev) || netif_is_bond_master(slave_dev)) {
> netdev_dbg(bond_dev, "Error: Device is bond slave or master\n");
>
> With that caveat:
I would say adding the check for netif_is_bond_master() is critical
since a check for only IFF_MASTER would fail when trying to add a bridge
to a bond and that failure would not be desireable.
Fix that and you can also add:
Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
to your next post.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
>
> This is probably a good candidate for -stable as well.
Agree
(Though netif_is_bond_master() was added in 3.10; luckily it would be an
easy backport.)
>
> -J
>
> ---
> -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
> --
> 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
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists