netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: correct rr balancing during link failure

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, 15 Dec 2020 21:32:50 +0000
From:   Lars Everbrand <lars.everbrand@...tonmail.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...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>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
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...