netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages

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: <ZdF04GYACphhBCwl@Laptop-X1>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:09:20 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
Cc: "j.vosburgh@...il.com" <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
	"andy@...yhouse.net" <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com>,
	Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>,
	Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages

On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 12:39:44PM +0000, Praveen Kannoju wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
> > Sent: 16 February 2024 02:33 PM
> > To: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
> > Cc: j.vosburgh@...il.com; andy@...yhouse.net; davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org;
> > pabeni@...hat.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom
> > <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com>; Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>; Manjunath Patil
> > <manjunath.b.patil@...cle.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:55:54PM +0530, Praveen Kumar Kannoju wrote:
> > > Rate limit bond driver log messages, to prevent a log flood in a
> > > run-away situation, e.g couldn't get rtnl lock. Message flood leads to
> > > instability of system and loss of other crucial messages.
> > 
> > Hi Praveen,
> > 
> > The patch looks good to me. But would you please help explain why these
> > slave_info() are chosen under net_ratelimit?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Hangbin
> 
> Thank you, Hangbin.
> 
> The routine bond_mii_monitor() periodically inspects the slave carrier state in order to detect for state changes, on a state change internally records it and does the state change action.
> 
> Parked-to-Parked state changes goes through transient state. As an example for Up to Down, BOND_LINK_UP to BOND_LINK_DOWN, is thru BOND_LINK_FAIL.  In order to attain next parked state or transient state bond needs rtnl mutex. If in a situation it cannot get it, a state change wouldn't happen.  In order to achieve a state change as quickly as possible  bond_mii_monitor() reschedules itself to come around after 1 msec. 

I think a large miimon downdelay/updelay setting could reduce this.

> And every single come around reinspects the link and sees a state change compared to its internally recorded, which in reality internal state could be not changed earlier as failed to get rtnl lock, and throws again log indicating it sees a state change. If attaining rtnl mutex take long say hypothetical 5 secs, then bond logs 5000 state change message. 1 message at every 1 msec. 

Anyway, setting the rate limit do reduce the message flood. Would you please
summarise the paragraph and add it in commit description when post the formal
patch?

thanks
Hangbin