netdev - Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1564097836.11887.16.camel@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:37:16 +0000
From:   Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To:     "tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses

Hi,

I'm having problems forming a TIPC cluster between 2 nodes.

This is the basic steps I'm going through on each node.

modprobe tipc
ip link set eth2 up
tipc node set addr 1.1.5 # or 1.1.6
tipc bearer enable media eth dev eth0

Then to confirm if the cluster is formed I use tipc link list

[root@...e-5 ~]# tipc link list
broadcast-link: up
...

Looking at tcpdump the two nodes are sending packets 

22:30:05.782320 TIPC v2.0 1.1.5 > 0.0.0, headerlength 60 bytes,
MessageSize 76 bytes, Neighbor Detection Protocol internal, messageType
Link request
22:30:05.863555 TIPC v2.0 1.1.6 > 0.0.0, headerlength 60 bytes,
MessageSize 76 bytes, Neighbor Detection Protocol internal, messageType
Link request

Eventually (after a few minutes) the link does come up

[root@...e-6 ~]# tipc link list
broadcast-link: up
1001006:eth2-1001005:eth2: up

[root@...e-5 ~]# tipc link list
broadcast-link: up
1001005:eth2-1001006:eth2: up

When I remove the "tipc node set addr" things seem to kick into life
straight away

[root@...e-5 ~]# tipc link list
broadcast-link: up
0050b61bd2aa:eth2-0050b61e6dfa:eth2: up

So there appears to be some difference in behaviour between having an
explicit node address and using the default. Unfortunately our
application relies on setting the node addresses.

[root@...e-5 ~]# uname -a
Linux linuxbox 5.2.0-at1+ #8 SMP Thu Jul 25 23:22:41 UTC 2019 ppc
GNU/Linux

Any thoughts on the problem?