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: <AACE3A98-C0C0-4B24-BC29-B8EC3A758D90@bamaicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 17:45:49 +0800
From: Tonghao Zhang <tonghao@...aicloud.com>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.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



> On Dec 1, 2025, at 14:57, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?
No, to simplify the code, and use common peer notify reset function.
> 
> Thanks
> Hangbin
> 
>