[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <320c2a05-e99a-88b4-2f67-11210ae37903@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 22:28:58 -0400
From: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
To: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn>
Cc: vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
john.fastabend@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
huyd12@...natelecom.cn, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] bonding: Remove unnecessary check
On 8/24/22 14:07, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> On 8/24/22, Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn> wrote:
>> This code is intended to support bond alb interface added to
>> Linux bridge by modifying MAC, however, it doesn't work for
>> one bond alb interface with vlan added to bridge.
>> Since commit d5410ac7b0ba("net:bonding:support balance-alb
>> interface with vlan to bridge"), new logic is adapted to handle
>> bond alb with or without vlan id, and then the code is deprecated.
>
> I think this could still be clearer; the actual changes relate to the stack of
> interfaces (e.g., eth0 -> bond0 -> vlan123 -> bridge0), not what VLAN tags
> incoming traffic contains.
>
> The code being removed here is specifically for the case of
> eth0 -> bond0 -> bridge0, without an intermediate VLAN interface
> in the stack (because, if memory serves, netif_is_bridge_port doesn't
> transfer through to the bond if there's a VLAN interface in between).
>
> Also, this code is for incoming traffic, assigning the bond's MAC to
> traffic arriving on interfaces other than the active interface (which bears
> the bond's MAC in alb mode; the other interfaces have different MACs).
> Commit d5410ac7b0ba affects the balance assignments for outgoing ARP
> traffic. I'm not sure that d5410 is an exact replacement for the code this
> patch removes.
I would be more comfortable with a change like this if it can be
demonstrated that an example test case functions as expected before and
after the change. Could a selftests test be written with veths to
demonstrate this code is indeed redundant?
-Jon
>
>>
>> Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <huyd12@...natelecom.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 13 -------------
>> 1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index 50e60843020c..6b0f0ce9b9a1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -1578,19 +1578,6 @@ static rx_handler_result_t bond_handle_frame(struct
>> sk_buff **pskb)
>>
>> skb->dev = bond->dev;
>>
>> - if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_ALB &&
>> - netif_is_bridge_port(bond->dev) &&
>> - skb->pkt_type == PACKET_HOST) {
>> -
>> - if (unlikely(skb_cow_head(skb,
>> - skb->data - skb_mac_header(skb)))) {
>> - kfree_skb(skb);
>> - return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
>> - }
>> - bond_hw_addr_copy(eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest, bond->dev->dev_addr,
>> - bond->dev->addr_len);
>> - }
>> -
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.27.0
>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists