netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] net: bonding: use workqueue to make sure peer notify updated in lacp mode

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: <aS08d1dOC2EOvz-U@fedora>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 06:57:59 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Tonghao Zhang <tonghao@...aicloud.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>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] net: bonding: use workqueue to make sure
 peer notify updated in lacp mode

Hi Tonghao,
On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 03:48:43PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> ---
> v1:
> - This patch is actually version v3, https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20251118090305.35558-1-tonghao@bamaicloud.com/
> - add a comment why we use the trylock.
> - add this patch to series
> ---

I think you can move the change logs to cover letter.

>  /**
>   * bond_change_active_slave - change the active slave into the specified one
>   * @bond: our bonding struct
> @@ -1270,8 +1299,6 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active)
>  						      BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);
>  
>  		if (new_active) {
> -			bool should_notify_peers = false;
> -
>  			bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_active,
>  						    BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);
>  
> @@ -1280,19 +1307,17 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active)
>  						      old_active);
>  
>  			if (netif_running(bond->dev)) {
> -				bond->send_peer_notif =
> -					bond->params.num_peer_notif *
> -					max(1, bond->params.peer_notif_delay);
> -				should_notify_peers =
> -					bond_should_notify_peers(bond);
> +				bond_peer_notify_reset(bond);
> +
> +				if (bond_should_notify_peers(bond)) {
> +					bond->send_peer_notif--;
> +					call_netdevice_notifiers(
> +							NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS,
> +							bond->dev);
> +				}
>  			}
>  
>  			call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER, bond->dev);
> -			if (should_notify_peers) {
> -				bond->send_peer_notif--;
> -				call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS,
> -							 bond->dev);
> -			}
>  		}
>  	}

I don’t see the benefit of moving NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS before NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER.
Is there a specific reason or scenario where this ordering change is required?

Thanks
Hangbin