Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <1436435914-8903-1-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
 <20150709100727.GE2270@nanopsycho.orion>
 <CALe+Z03R_MPcgUSa8xoMeT5Sv3z8KwFhrtoYYzON=prfR-7hxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150710064147.GA2204@nanopsycho.orion>
From:   Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c674e681-9f7f-85c2-a578-a246d1ec9f45@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:04:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150710064147.GA2204@nanopsycho.orion>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote:
>>>> The code in net/ipv6/addrconf.c:addrconf_notify() tests for IFF_SLAVE to
>>>> decide if it should start the address configuration. Since team ports
>>>> shouldn't get link-local addresses assigned lets set IFF_SLAVE when linking
>>>> a port to the team master.
>>>
>>> I don't want to use IFF_SLAVE in team. Other master-slave devices are
>>> not using that as well, for example bridge, ovs, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe they need to get fixed too. I've used that flag because it is
>> documented as
>> a "slave of a load balancer" which describes what a team port is.
>>
>>
>>> I think that this should be fixed in addrconf_notify. It should lookup
>>> if there is a master on top and bail out in that case.
>>
>> There are other virtual interfaces that have a master assigned and want to
>> participate in IPv6 address configuration.
> 
> Can you give me an example?

I would like to revisit this patch (yes, I know it has been a while).  I 
believe the VRF implementation uses master to group the interfaces under
a single interface.

I don't see a reason not to use IFF_SLAVE since team and bonding are 
fairly similar.

>>
>> Unless we want to have a cascade of conditionals testing the priv_flags in
>> addrconf_notify() this is asking for a new net_device_flags flag.
>> Maybe something
>> generic like IFF_L2PORT ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jan
>>
>> [ Jiri, sorry for getting that mail twice ]
> 
> 
>