netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v5 3/4] net: bonding: send peer notify when failure recovery

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: <7D86A40E-5B09-4ED6-A836-A3DB8050020C@bamaicloud.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 23:46:12 +0800
From: Tonghao Zhang <tonghao@...aicloud.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
 Zengbing Tu <tuzengbing@...iglobal.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v5 3/4] net: bonding: send peer notify
 when failure recovery



> 2025年5月27日 22:09，Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> 写道：
> 
> On 5/22/25 10:55 AM, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index b5c34d7f126c..7f03ca9bcbba 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -1242,17 +1242,28 @@ static struct slave *bond_find_best_slave(struct bonding *bond)
>> /* must be called in RCU critical section or with RTNL held */
>> static bool bond_should_notify_peers(struct bonding *bond)
>> {
>> - struct slave *slave = rcu_dereference_rtnl(bond->curr_active_slave);
>> + struct bond_up_slave *usable;
>> + struct slave *slave = NULL;
>> 
>> - if (!slave || !bond->send_peer_notif ||
>> + if (!bond->send_peer_notif ||
>>    bond->send_peer_notif %
>>    max(1, bond->params.peer_notif_delay) != 0 ||
>> -    !netif_carrier_ok(bond->dev) ||
>> -    test_bit(__LINK_STATE_LINKWATCH_PENDING, &slave->dev->state))
>> +    !netif_carrier_ok(bond->dev))
>> return false;
>> 
>> + if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_8023AD) {
>> + usable = rcu_dereference_rtnl(bond->usable_slaves);
>> + if (!usable || !READ_ONCE(usable->count))
>> + return false;
> 
> The above unconditionally changes the current behavior for
> BOND_MODE_8023AD regardless of the `broadcast_neighbor` value. Why the
> new behavior is not conditioned by broadcast_neighbor == true?
In active-backup or lacp mode, we can the  change send_peer_notif, so we check send_peer_notif firstly in this fuction. This is common function for sending ARP/ND packets. 
For lacp mode, if usable_slaves is null, so unnecessarily sending ARP/ND packets, and we change send_peer_notif in mux state and add the comment in patch 3.

--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
@@ -982,6 +982,17 @@ static int ad_marker_send(struct port *port, struct bond_marker *marker)
        return 0;
 }

+static void ad_cond_set_peer_notif(struct port *port)
+{
+       struct bonding *bond = port->slave->bond;
+
+       if (bond->params.broadcast_neighbor && rtnl_trylock()) {
+               bond->send_peer_notif = bond->params.num_peer_notif *
+                       max(1, bond->params.peer_notif_delay);
+               rtnl_unlock();
+       }
+}
+
 /**
  * ad_mux_machine - handle a port's mux state machine
  * @port: the port we're looking at
@@ -2061,6 +2072,8 @@ static void ad_enable_collecting_distributing(struct port *port,
                __enable_port(port);
                /* Slave array needs update */
                *update_slave_arr = true;
+               /* Should notify peers if possible */
+               ad_cond_set_peer_notif(port);
        }
 }
 
> 
> At least a code comment is deserved.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 
> 
>