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 22:59:24 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:	jay.vosburgh@...onical.com, bjornar.ness@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, vfalico@...il.com,
	gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, jiri@...nulli.us, mst@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio

From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:48:26 +0100

> 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 also agree.  Having a whitelist is just rediculous.

There should be a default speed/duplex setting for such devices as well.
We can pick one that will be use universally for these kinds of devices.