netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero

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: <e1150971-ec16-0421-a13a-d6d2a0a66348@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:37:35 -0500
From:   Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
Cc:     Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when
 updelay is nonzero

On 11/22/22 09:45, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:36 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>> On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>>>> Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves
>>>> lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the
>>>> expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond
>>>> currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1
>>>> paragraph 4.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to
>>> the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag?
>>>
>>> Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree.
>>>
>>
>> I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted
>> the net-next tree.
> 
> When in doubt I think it's preferrable to point out a commit surely
> affected by the issue - even if that is possibly not the one
> introducing the issue - than no Fixes as all. The lack of tag will make
> more difficult the work for stable teams.
> 
> In this specific case I think that:
> 
> Fixes: 41f891004063 ("bonding: ignore updelay param when there is no active slave")
> 
> should be ok, WDYT? if you agree would you mind repost for -net?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 

Yes that looks like a good one. I will repost to -net a v2 that includes 
changes to reduce the number of icmp echos sent before failing the test.

Thanks,
-Jon