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: <YmKCPSIzXjvystdy@Laptop-X1>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:23:57 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>, 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>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add per port priority support

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 06:20:52PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > 	Agreed, on both the comment and in regards to using the extant
> > bonding options management stuff.
> > 
> > >Also, in the Documentation it is mentioned that this parameter is only
> > >used in modes active-backup and balance-alb/tlb. Do we need to send an
> > >error message back preventing the modification of this value when not in
> > >these modes?
> > 
> > 	Using the option management stuff would get this for free.
> 
> Hi Jav, Jon,
> 
> I remembered the reason why I didn't use bond default option management.
> 
> It's because the bonding options management only take bond and values. We
> need to create an extra string to save the slave name and option values.
> Then in bond option setting function we extract the info from the string
> and do setting again, like the bond_option_queue_id_set().
> 
> I think this is too heavy for just an int value setting for slave.
> As we only support netlink for new options. There is no need to handle
> string setting via sysfs. For mode checking, we do just do like:
> 
> if (!bond_uses_primary(bond))
> 	return -EACCES;
> 
> So why bother the bonding options management? What do you think?
> Do you have a easier way to get the slave name in options management?
> If yes, I'm happy to use the default option management.

Hi Jan,

Any comments?

Thanks
Hangbin