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]

Message-ID: <20160131165501-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:58:42 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
	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>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:48:26PM +0100, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> 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.

This looks like a very reasonable thing to do:
user might have knowledge of the actual speed through
some side-channel.

We might also propagate it to hypervisor in the future.

And this sound useful even if bonding is changed
to allow DUPLEX_UNKNOWN.

So please post this patch.


> 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
> >