netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 2/5] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

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: <20180522161509-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 16:17:37 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com, aaron.f.brown@...el.com,
        anjali.singhai@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 2/5] netvsc: refactor notifier/event
 handling code to use the failover framework

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:14:22PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:12:40PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
> >> >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com wrote:
> >> >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic
> >> >>failover infrastructure.
> >> >>
> >> >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> >> >
> >> >In previous patchset versions, the common code did
> >> >netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
> >> >(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?
> >> >
> >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for
> >> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong.
> >> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used.
> >
> >Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE?
> 
> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding.

What breaks if we reuse it for failover?

-- 
MST