netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add per port priority support

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]

Message-ID: <19207.1649778011@famine>
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:40:11 -0700
From:   Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add per port priority support

Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 09:55:45PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Add per port priority support for bonding. A higher number means higher
>> >priority. The primary slave still has the highest priority. This option
>> >also follows the primary_reselect rules.
>> 
>> 	The above description (and the Subject) should mention that this
>> apparently refers to priority in interface selection during failover
>> events.
>
>OK, will update it. How about:
>
>Bonding: add per port priority for current slave re-selection during failover

	That would be better, but something like "add per-port priority
for failover re-selection" would be a bit shorter.

>Add per port priority support for bonding current re-selection during failover.
>A higher number means higher priority in selection. The primary slave still
>has the highest priority. This option also follows the primary_reselect rules.

	This seems reasonable.

>> >@@ -117,6 +121,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy bond_policy[IFLA_BOND_MAX + 1] = {
>> > 
>> > static const struct nla_policy bond_slave_policy[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_MAX + 1] = {
>> > 	[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_QUEUE_ID]	= { .type = NLA_U16 },
>> >+	[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_PRIO]		= { .type = NLA_S32 },
>> 
>> 	Why used signed instead of unsigned?
>> 
>> 	Regardless, the valid range for the prio value should be
>> documented.
>
>I did this in purpose as team also use singed number. User could use a
>negative number for a specific link while other links keep using default 0.

	Fair enough; I had been comparing to the LACP port priority and
route metric, both of which are unsigned.

>BTW, how to document the valid ranger for a int number, -2^31 ~ 2^31-1 or
>INT_MIN ~ INT_MAX.

	The documentation can simply state that the value is a signed 32
bit integer (rather than giving the specifics).

	-J

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