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:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 16:11:42 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <>
Cc:     Jonathan Toppins <>,,
        Veaceslav Falico <>,
        Andy Gospodarek <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        David Ahern <>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add per port priority support

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:04:46PM -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > 	Presuming that you mean creating a sub-struct here and moving
> > some set of members of struct slave into it, I'm not sure I see the
> > benefit, as it would only exist here and not really be an independent
> > object.  Am I misunderstanding?
> You are understanding correctly. The goal of this work is to eventually port
> the majority of the per-port parameters that exist in teaming to bonding, we
> have not determined the entire set that make sense. Thus there will be more

Hi Jay,

As Jon said, I'm working to implement/import teaming specific features to
bonding, so users could have more choice. One import feature teaming has is
per-port parameters/configurations. A part of the per-port configs are
queue_id, prio, lacp_prio, lacp_key, etc. Most of the configs are link_watch
parameters. Which means each port/slave has it's own delay up, delay down,
interval, arp targets, etc. We are still discussing if bonding need all of
them or just a part.

Do you see if it's valuable to add all the per-port link watch configurations
to bonding?

> than just port priority as a userspace configurable option. So I was
> attempting to ask if modeling the initial setting of these parameters like
> how `bonding_defaults` is used, made sense.
> file: drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c:
> 	void bond_setup(struct net_device *bond_dev)
> 	{
> 		struct bonding *bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> 		spin_lock_init(&bond->mode_lock);
> 		bond->params = bonding_defaults;
> 	...
> We can always refactor this area when there is another option that needs
> setting.
> -Jon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists