netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] bonding: pair enable_port with slave_arr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15939.1643654735@famine>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:45:35 -0800
From:   Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To:     Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] bonding: pair enable_port with slave_arr_updates

Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com> wrote:

>When 803.2ad mode enables a participating port, it should update
>the slave-array. I have observed that the member links are participating
>and are part of the active aggregator while the traffic is egressing via
>only one member link (in a case where two links are participating). Via
>krpobes I discovered that that slave-arr has only one link added while
>the other participating link wasn't part of the slave-arr.
>
>I couldn't see what caused that situation but the simple code-walk
>through provided me hints that the enable_port wasn't always associated
>with the slave-array update.
>
>Change-Id: I6c9ed91b027d53580734f1198579e71deee60bbf
>Signed-off-by: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>

	Please remove the Change-Id line.

>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>index 6006c2e8fa2b..4d876bfa0c00 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>@@ -1021,8 +1021,9 @@ static void ad_mux_machine(struct port *port, bool *update_slave_arr)
> 				if (port->aggregator &&
> 				    port->aggregator->is_active &&
> 				    !__port_is_enabled(port)) {
>-
> 					__enable_port(port);
>+					/* Slave array needs update */
>+					*update_slave_arr = true;

	Given the name of the variable here, I think the comment is
superfluous (both here and the change below).

	Functionally, though, I think the change is reasonable.  Could
you fix these two nits and repost?

	-J

> 				}
> 			}
> 			break;
>@@ -1779,6 +1780,8 @@ static void ad_agg_selection_logic(struct aggregator *agg,
> 			     port = port->next_port_in_aggregator) {
> 				__enable_port(port);
> 			}
>+			/* Slave array needs update. */
>+			*update_slave_arr = true;
> 		}
> 	}
> 
>-- 
>2.35.0.rc2.247.g8bbb082509-goog
>

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com