netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] Bonding: add per-port priority for failover re-selection

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: <Yql2XVNxJ0VyLoCK@Laptop-X1>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:04:13 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...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>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] Bonding: add per-port priority for failover
 re-selection

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 08:52:58PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 11:29:34 +0800
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c
> > index 5a6f44455b95..41b3244747fa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ static size_t bond_get_slave_size(const struct net_device *bond_dev,
> >  		nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) +	/* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_AD_AGGREGATOR_ID */
> >  		nla_total_size(sizeof(u8)) +	/* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_AD_ACTOR_OPER_PORT_STATE */
> >  		nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) +	/* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_AD_PARTNER_OPER_PORT_STATE */
> > +		nla_total_size(sizeof(s32)) +	/* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_PRIO */
> >  		0;
> >  }
> 
> Why the choice to make it signed? It would be clearer as unsigned value.

Let's say you have a bond with 10 slaves. You want to make 1 slave with
lowest priority. With singed value, you can just set it to -10 while other
slaves keep using the default value 0.

> Also, using full 32 bits seems like overkill.

Yes, it seems too much for just priority. This is to compatible with team
prio option[1].

[1] https://github.com/jpirko/libteam/blob/master/man/teamd.conf.5#L138

Thanks
Hangbin