Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work properly in bridge
From: Jiri Pirko <hidden>
Date: 2009-03-14 09:51:01
Also in:
bridge, lkml
Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 06:39:32AM CET, shemminger@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:33:04 +0100 Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi all. This is only a draft of patch to consult. I'm aware that it should be divided into multiple patches. I want to know opinion from you folks. The problem is described in following bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487763 Basically here's what's going on. In every mode, bonding interface uses the same mac address for all enslaved devices. Except for mode balance-alb. When you put this kind of bond device into a bridge it will only add one of mac adresses into a hash list of mac addresses, say X. This mac address is marked as local. But this bonding interface also has mac address Y. Now then packet arrives with destination address Y, this address is not marked as local and the packed looks like it needs to be forwarded. This packet is then lost which is wrong. Notice that interfaces can be added and removed from bond while it is in bridge. Therefore I introduce another function pointer in struct net_device_ops - ndo_check_mac_address. This function when it's implemented should check passed mac address against the one set in device. I'm using this in bonding driver when the bond is in mode balance-alb to walk thru all slaves and checking if any of them equals passed address. Then in bridge function br_handle_frame_finish() I'm using ndo_check_mac_address to recognize the destination mac address as local. Please look at this and tell me what you think about it. Thanks JirkaA better and more general way to do this have the dev_set_mac_address function check the return of the notifier and unwind. Then any protocol can easily prevent address from changing.
Can you please describe this thougth a bit more? I can't understand it now... Thanks Jirka