| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <568F5298.3030507@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:09:28 +0800
From: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
To: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc: "vfalico@...il.com" <vfalico@...il.com>,
"gospo@...ulusnetworks.com" <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)" <boris.shteinbock@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
On 01/08/2016 02:28 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: zhuyj [mailto:zyjzyj2000@...il.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 11:47 PM
>> To: Tantilov, Emil S; Michal Kubecek; Jay Vosburgh
>> Cc: vfalico@...il.com; gospo@...ulusnetworks.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
>> Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
>>
>> On 01/07/2016 10:43 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: zhuyj [mailto:zyjzyj2000@...il.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 7:05 PM
>>>> To: Tantilov, Emil S; Michal Kubecek; Jay Vosburgh
>>>> Cc: vfalico@...il.com; gospo@...ulusnetworks.com;
>> netdev@...r.kernel.org;
>>>> Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
>>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2016 09:26 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-
>> owner@...r.kernel.org]
>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of zhuyj
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:19 AM
>>>>>> To: Michal Kubecek; Jay Vosburgh
>>>>>> Cc: vfalico@...il.com; gospo@...ulusnetworks.com;
>>>> netdev@...r.kernel.org;
>>>>>> Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/28/2015 04:43 PM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 01:57:16PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>>>>>>> <zyjzyj2000@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In 802.3ad mode, the speed and duplex is needed. But in some NIC,
>>>>>>>>> there is a time span between NIC up state and getting speed and
>>>> duplex.
>>>>>>>>> As such, sometimes a slave in 802.3ad mode is in up state without
>>>>>>>>> speed and duplex. This will make bonding in 802.3ad mode can not
>>>>>>>>> work well.
>>>>>>>>> To make bonding driver be compatible with more NICs, it is
>>>>>>>>> necessary to restrict the up state in 802.3ad mode.
>>>>>>>> What device is this? It seems a bit odd that an Ethernet
>> device
>>>>>>>> can be carrier up but not have the duplex and speed available.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> In general, though, bonding expects a speed or duplex change to
>>>>>>>> be announced via a NETDEV_UPDATE or NETDEV_UP notifier, which would
>>>>>>>> propagate to the 802.3ad logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the device here is going carrier up prior to having speed or
>>>>>>>> duplex available, then maybe it should call netdev_state_change()
>> when
>>>>>>>> the duplex and speed are available, or delay calling
>>>> netif_carrier_on().
>>>>>>> I have encountered this problem (NIC having carrier on before being
>>>> able
>>>>>>> to detect speed/duplex and driver not notifying when speed/duplex
>>>>>>> becomes available) with netxen cards earlier. But it was eventually
>>>>>>> fixed in the driver by commit 9d01412ae76f ("netxen: Fix link event
>>>>>>> handling.") so this example rather supports what you said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michal
>>>> Kubecek
>>>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>>> I checked the commit 9d01412ae76f ("netxen: Fix link event
>>>>>> handling."). The symptoms are the same with mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The root cause is different. In my problem, the root cause is that
>> LINKS
>>>>>> register[] can not provide link_up and link_speed at the same time.
>>>>>> There is a time span between link_up and link_speed.
>>>>> The LINK_UP and LINK_SPEED bits in the LINKS register for ixgbe HW are
>>>> updated
>>>>> simultaneously. Do you have any proof to show the delay you are
>> referring
>>>> to
>>>>> as I am sure our HW engineers would like to know about it.
>>>> Sorry. I can not reproduce this problem locally. What I have is the
>>>> feedback from the customer.
>>> So you are assuming that there is a delay due to the issue you are
>> seeing?
>>>> Settings for eth0:
>>>> Supported ports: [ TP ]
>>>> Supported link modes: 100baseT/Full
>>>> 1000baseT/Full
>>>> 10000baseT/Full
>>>> Supported pause frame use: No
>>>> Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
>>>> Advertised link modes: 100baseT/Full
>>>> 1000baseT/Full
>>>> 10000baseT/Full
>>>> Advertised pause frame use: No
>>>> Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
>>>> Speed: Unknown!
>>>> Duplex: Unknown! (255)
>>>> Port: Twisted Pair
>>>> PHYAD: 0
>>>> Transceiver: external
>>>> Auto-negotiation: on
>>>> MDI-X: Unknown
>>>> Supports Wake-on: d
>>>> Wake-on: d
>>>> Current message level: 0x00000007 (7)
>>>> drv probe link
>>>> Link detected: yes
>>> The speed and the link state here are reported from
>>> different sources:
>>>
>>>> Link detected: yes
>>> Comes from a netif_carrier_ok() check. This is done via
>> ethtool_op_get_link().
>>> Only the speed is reported through the LINKS register - that is why it is
>> reported
>>> as "Unknown" - in other words link_up is false.
>>>
>>> This is a trace from the case where the bonding driver reports 0 Mbps:
>>>
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [010] .... 6493.084916: ixgbe_service_task:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [011] .... 6493.184894: ixgbe_service_task:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [000] .... 6494.439883: ixgbe_service_task:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = true
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [000] .... 6494.464204: ixgbe_service_task:
>> eth1: NIC Link is Up 10 Gbps, Flow Control: RX/TX
>>> kworker/0:2-1926 [000] .... 6494.464249: ixgbe_get_settings:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
>>> NetworkManager-3819 [008] .... 6494.464484: ixgbe_get_settings:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [007] .... 6494.496886: bond_mii_monitor: bond0:
>> link status definitely up for interface eth1, 0 Mbps full duplex
>>> NetworkManager-3819 [008] .... 6494.496967: ixgbe_get_settings:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [008] .... 6495.288798: ixgbe_service_task:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = true
>>> kworker/u48:1-27950 [008] .... 6495.388806: ixgbe_service_task:
>> eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = true
>>
>> Hi, Emil
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>> From your log, I think the following can explain why bonding driver can
>> not get speed.
>>
>> bonding ixgbe
>> . .
>> . <----------------------- NETDEV_UP
>> . .
>> bond_slave_netdev_event NETDEV_DOWN
>> . .
>> . .
>> . .
>> NETDEV_UP .
>> . ----------------> get_settings
>> .
>> speed unknown <--------------- link_up false
>> .
>> .
>> link_up = true
>> link_speed = unknown
>>
>> In the above, ixgbe is up and bonding gets this message, then bonding
>> calls bond_slave_netdev_event while ixgbe is down.
>> In bond_slave_netdev_event, bonding call get_settings in ixgbe to get
>> link_speed. Since now ixgbe is down, so link_speed is
>> unknown. In the end, bonding get the final state of ixgbe as link_up
>> without link_speed.
>>
>> If you agree with me, would you like to help me to make tests with the
>> following patch?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
>> index d681273..3efc4d8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
>> @@ -285,27 +285,24 @@ static int ixgbe_get_settings(struct net_device
>> *netdev,
>> }
>>
>> hw->mac.ops.check_link(hw, &link_speed, &link_up, false);
>> - if (link_up) {
>> - switch (link_speed) {
>> - case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_10GB_FULL:
>> - ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_10000);
>> - break;
>> - case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_2_5GB_FULL:
>> - ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_2500);
>> - break;
>> - case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_1GB_FULL:
>> - ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_1000);
>> - break;
>> - case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_100_FULL:
>> - ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_100);
>> - break;
>> - default:
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - ecmd->duplex = DUPLEX_FULL;
>> - } else {
>> - ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_UNKNOWN);
>> +
>> + ecmd->duplex = DUPLEX_FULL;
>> + switch (link_speed) {
>> + case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_10GB_FULL:
>> + ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_10000);
>> + break;
>> + case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_2_5GB_FULL:
>> + ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_2500);
>> + break;
>> + case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_1GB_FULL:
>> + ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_1000);
>> + break;
>> + case IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_100_FULL:
>> + ethtool_cmd_speed_set(ecmd, SPEED_100);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> ecmd->duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
>> + break;
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
> This will break speed reporting. You cannot ignore link_up.
> The speed is only valid when the link_up bit is set.
Hi, Emil
Thanks for your reply.
But in this function ixgbe_check_mac_link_generic. The speed is reported
whether the link_up is true or false.
I followed this function.
Thanks a lot.
Zhu Yanjun
>
> Thanks,
> Emil
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists