Re: unresponsive vlan on top of bond with fail_over_mac=active

Michal Kubecek [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:34:31PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:

quoted

Michal Kubecek [off-list ref] wrote:
	What network device are they using that requires fail_over_mac
to be set to active?

I would have to ask for exact configuration, all I know for sure is that
the problem was reported for s390x (S390-64) architecture. I reproduced
it with VMware Workstation virtual devices which emulate Intel e1000.

	Have you tried the "follow" setting to fail_over_mac?

	I looked into this very topic (VLAN address propagation on s390)
earlier this year.  The eventual solution for that case was to use the
"follow" fail_over_mac option, which resolved the problem for the OSA
device (qeth).

	I did submit a patch to do MAC address propagation to VLANs, but
then withdrew it after I figured out that "follow" would also resolve
the problem without code changes.

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/153551/

quoted

	I tested some of this out earlier this year, and I don't recall
having problems (although I'm not sure I did this exact test).  The
dev_uc_add() logic (in __dev_set_rx_mode) would put the underlying
device into promiscuous mode if the hardware didn't support multiple
unicast MAC addresses. dev_uc_add() was invoked by vlan_sync_address(),
which is called by the vlan NETDEV_CHANGEADDR notifier callback.

Yes, this part works fine, I checked uc list with live crash session.
But as bonding driver doesn't set its ndo_set_rx_mode method, the
iformation about second MAC address doesn't propagate down to the
slaves.

	What kernel are you looking at?  In current mainline, bonding
does have bond_set_multicast_list as ndo_set_rx_mode, although it
doesn't propagate unicast address information, only multicast.  I
believe this has been the case for a long time.

quoted

	Bonding does propagate promisc to its slaves, but (as you point
out) not the uc lists; is the hardware in question something that
supports multiple unicast addresses (IFF_UNICAST_FLT)?  The device I
tested with does not support IFF_UNICAST_FLT, and (as I recall) would
end up in promisc mode.

My tests were done with (emulated) e1000 which supports unicast
filtering (up to 14 addresses, according to what I've seen in the
driver). I'm not sure about the devices on s390x.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com