netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6] bonding: Add independent control state machine

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: <15d7f2941394e04d45f98aa6d095b1e07262655c.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 11:15:40 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Aahil Awatramani <aahila@...gle.com>, David Dillow
 <dave@...dillows.org>,  Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>, Jay Vosburgh
 <j.vosburgh@...il.com>, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>,  Andy
 Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,  Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>, Herbert Xu
 <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6] bonding: Add independent control state
 machine

On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 20:27 +0000, Aahil Awatramani wrote:
> Add support for the independent control state machine per IEEE
> 802.1AX-2008 5.4.15 in addition to the existing implementation of the
> coupled control state machine.
> 
> Introduces two new states, AD_MUX_COLLECTING and AD_MUX_DISTRIBUTING in
> the LACP MUX state machine for separated handling of an initial
> Collecting state before the Collecting and Distributing state. This
> enables a port to be in a state where it can receive incoming packets
> while not still distributing. This is useful for reducing packet loss when
> a port begins distributing before its partner is able to collect.

If I read the code correctly, the transition
AD_MUX_COLLECTING_DISTRIBUTING -> AD_MUX_DISTRIBUTING is not possible,
am I correct?

Any chance we can have some coverage via self-tests?

Thanks,

Paolo