Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 25062] New: Bonding packet deduplication doesn't work properly anymore

(switched to email.  Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
bugzilla web interface).

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:45:18 GMT
bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25062

           Summary: Bonding packet deduplication doesn't work properly
                    anymore
           Product: Networking
           Version: 2.5
    Kernel Version: > 2.6.33
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
              Tree: Mainline
            Status: NEW
          Severity: high
          Priority: P1
         Component: Other
        AssignedTo: acme@ghostprotocols.net
        ReportedBy: kevin.lapagna@bigtag.ch
        Regression: No


Here's the setup:

switch: ordinary cisco switch
eth0: NIC with kernel module tg3
eth1: NIC with kernel module e1000e
bond0: bond with slaves eth0,eth1 in mode 1 (or 5)
bond0.100: vlan device created with vconfig
bridge100: bridge created with brctl
tap1: tap device created with tunctl
vguest: qemu-kvm vguest whit emulated e1000 NIC


|________________|-- eth0 \                                               |________________|
| switch |          -- bond0 -- bond0.100 -- bridge100 -- tap1 -- | vguest |
|________|-- eth1 /                                               |________|

When the vguest emits an ethernet broadcast (DHCP-request), it's forwarded all
the way up to the switch, through eth0. The switch forwards the broadcast -
also to eth1. The packet travels then all the way back to bridge100. So the
last status known for bridge100, regarding the mac address of the vgeust is,
that it is behind bond0.110 (instead of tap1). If a DHCP-server responds to the
request, the packet travels to bridge100, which has now a faulty
MAC-address-table and the packet will be rejected and never reaches tap1 and
therefor not the vguest.

I witnessed this wrong behavior in kernel 2.6.37-rc5 (debian package), 2.6.36.2
and 2.6.35.9 (self compiled -  vanilla). The setup has worked with kernels <=
2.6.33.7. I've never tried 2.6.34.

I assume the setup above is a common way for the separation of virtual guests
on a network level. So this could become a major issue for a lot of people when
upgrading their kernels.