netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode

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:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:07:58 +0200
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4
 mode

On 29/10/2019 21:45, Matteo Croce wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 7:41 PM Nikolay Aleksandrov
> <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/10/2019 20:35, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>> Hi Matteo,
>>> Wouldn't it be more useful and simpler to use some field to choose the slave (override the hash
>>> completely) in a deterministic way from user-space ?
>>> For example the mark can be interpreted as a slave id in the bonding (should be
>>> optional, to avoid breaking existing setups). ping already supports -m and
>>> anything else can set it, this way it can be used to do monitoring for a specific
>>> slave with any protocol and would be a much simpler change.
>>> User-space can then implement any logic for the monitoring case and as a minor bonus
>>> can monitor the slaves in parallel. And the opposite as well - if people don't want
>>> these balanced for some reason, they wouldn't enable it.
>>>
>>
>> Ooh I just noticed you'd like to balance replies as well. Nevermind
>>
> 
> Also, the bonding could be in a router in the middle so no way to read the mark.
> 

Yeah, of course. I was just thinking from the host monitoring POV as I thought
that was the initial intent (reading the last set's discussion).

Anyway the patch looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>