lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net V3] bonding: send igmp report for its master
    On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:43:19PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
    > Weiping Pan <panweiping3@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Liang Zheng(lzheng@redhat.com) found that in the following topo,
    > >bonding does not send igmp report when we trigger a fail-over of bonding.
    > >
    > >eth0--
    > > |-- bond0 -- br0
    > >eth1--
    > >
    > >modprobe bonding mode=1 miimon=100 resend_igmp=10
    > >ifconfig bond0 up
    > >ifenslave bond0 eth0 eth1
    > >
    > >brctl addbr br0
    > >ifconfig br0 192.168.100.2/24 up
    > >brctl addif br0 bond0
    > >
    > >Add 192.168.100.2(br0) into a multicast group, like 224.10.10.10,
    > >then trigger a fali-over in bonding.
    > >You can see that parameter "resend_igmp" does not work.
    > >
    > >The reason is that when we add br0 into a multicast group,
    > >it does not propagate multicast knowledge down to its ports.
    > >
    > >If we choose to propagate multicast knowledge down to all ports for bridge,
    > >then we have to track every change that is done to bridge, and keep a backup
    > >for all ports. It is hard to track, I think.
    > >
    > >Instead I choose to modify bonding to send igmp report for its master.
    > >
    > >Changelog:
    > >V2: correct comments
    > >V3: move this check into bond_resend_igmp_join_requests()
    > >
    > >Signed-off-by: Weiping Pan <panweiping3@gmail.com>
    > >---
    > > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 +++++++++++---
    > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
    > >
    > >diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
    > >index 435984a..037fdd3 100644
    > >--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
    > >+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
    > >@@ -766,18 +766,26 @@ static void __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(struct net_device *dev)
    > > */
    > > static void bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(struct bonding *bond)
    > > {
    > >- struct net_device *vlan_dev;
    > >+ struct net_device *bond_dev, *vlan_dev, *master_dev;
    > > struct vlan_entry *vlan;
    > >
    > > read_lock(&bond->lock);
    > >
    > >+ bond_dev = bond->dev;
    > >+
    > > /* rejoin all groups on bond device */
    > >- __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(bond->dev);
    > >+ __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(bond_dev);
    > >+
    > >+ /* rejoin all groups on its master */
    > >+ master_dev = bond_dev->master;
    > >+ if (unlikely(master_dev)) {
    > >+ __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(master_dev);
    > >+ }
    >
    > Will this do the right thing if the master is not a bridge?
    > Granted, right now the only other possible master is a team (since
    > bonding will not enslave itself), but is this generically safe and
    > desirable for any possible master_dev?
    >

    I agree with Jay. You should also check the private flags to see if
    IFF_BRIDGE_PORT is set.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-16 14:39    [W:0.028 / U:29.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site