netdev - Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio

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]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:48:26 +0100
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:	Bjørnar Ness <bjornar.ness@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio

On 01/29/2016 10:45 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/25/2016 05:24 PM, Bjørnar Ness wrote:
>>> As subject says, 802.3ad bonding is not working with virtio network model.
>>>
>>> The only errors I see is:
>>>
>>> No 802.3ad response from the link partner for any adapters in the bond.
>>>
>>> Dumping the network traffic shows that no LACP packets are sent from the
>>> host running with virtio driver, changing to for example e1000 solves
>>> this problem
>>> with no configuration changes.
>>>
>>> Is this a known problem?
>>>
>> [Including bonding maintainers for comments]
>>
>> Hi,
>> Here's a workaround patch for virtio_net devices that "cheats" the
>> duplex test (which is the actual problem). I've tested this locally
>> and it works for me.
>> I'd let the others comment on the implementation, there're other signs
>> that can be used to distinguish a virtio_net device so I'm open to suggestions.
>> Also feedback if this is at all acceptable would be appreciated.
> 
> 	Should virtio instead provide an arbitrary speed and full duplex
> to ethtool, as veth does?
> 
> 	Creating a magic whitelist of devices deep inside the 802.3ad
> implementation seems less desirable.
> 
TBH, I absolutely agree. In fact here's what we've been doing:
add set_settings which allows the user to set any speed/duplex
and get_settings of course to retrieve that. This is also useful
for testing other stuff that requires speed and duplex, not only
for the bonding case.

I'll add the virtio_net maintainers to the discussion, see if it's
okay with everyone and I'll move to send patches once net-next opens up.

Thanks!


> 	-J
> 	
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
>