netdev - Re: [Question]: should we consider arp missed max during bond_ab_arp

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: <ZysqM_T8f5qDetmk@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 09:34:59 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Question]: should we consider arp missed max during
 bond_ab_arp_probe()?

Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 08:39:48AM CET, liuhangbin@...il.com wrote:
>Hi Jay,
>
>Our QE reported that, when there is no active slave during
>bond_ab_arp_probe(), the slaves send the arp probe message one by one. This
>will flap the switch's mac table quickly, sometimes even make the switch stop
>learning mac address. So should we consider the arp missed max during
>bond_ab_arp_probe()? i.e. each slave has more chances to send probe messages
>before switch to another slave. What do you think?

Out of curiosity, is anyone still using AB mode in real life? And if
yes, any idea why exacly?

>
>Thanks
>Hangbin
>