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  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, 15 Dec 2020 21:32:50 +0000
From:   Lars Everbrand <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:, Jay Vosburgh <>,
        Veaceslav Falico <>,
        Andy Gospodarek <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: correct rr balancing during link failure

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 11:45:13AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Thanks for the patch!
Kind words for my first attempt at this. Sorry for answering a bit late,
proton-bridge is not my best friend lately.
> Looking at the code in question it feels a little like we're breaking
> abstractions if we bump the counter directly in get_slave_by_id.
My intention was to avoid a big change, and this was the easiest way. I
trust your opinion here.
> For one thing when the function is called for IGMP packets the counter
> should not be incremented at all. But also if packets_per_slave is not
> 1 we'd still be hitting the same leg multiple times (packets_per_slave
> / 2). So it seems like we should round the counter up somehow?
I did not consider this case, I only test =1 and random. Yeah, it breaks
if the counter is updated per packet in any >1 case. 
> For IGMP maybe we don't have to call bond_get_slave_by_id() at all,
> IMHO, just find first leg that can TX. Then we can restructure
> bond_get_slave_by_id() appropriately for the non-IGMP case.
I can have another look but my I am not confident that I am skilled
enough in this area to produce a larger overhaul... 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists