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;
Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:46:37 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports
Message-ID: <20181005064637.GA3061@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <20150710064147.GA2204@nanopsycho.orion>
 <c674e681-9f7f-85c2-a578-a246d1ec9f45@gmail.com>
 <20180930071414.GF2209@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20180930113805.3b8e62a1@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
 <20180930093452.GG2209@nanopsycho.orion>
 <b3cf1799-7ee2-47b3-e9ed-98e41ae56853@gmail.com>
 <20181002111215.GA2222@nanopsycho>
 <d87d05cd-bd35-4551-4c6c-44409b92dd5b@gmail.com>
 <20181003104436.GB2222@nanopsycho>
 <526bd655-5816-69dd-ac75-bdd4f85f1ce9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <526bd655-5816-69dd-ac75-bdd4f85f1ce9@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 07:30:06PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>On 10/03/18 06:44, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:20:25PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 10/02/18 07:12, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 04:06:16PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > On 09/30/18 05:34, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > > > Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:38:05AM CEST, stephen@networkplumber.org wrote:
>> > > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14:14 +0200
>> > > > > > Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:04:26PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > > 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.
>> > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > Again, why do you need team port to have IFF_SLAVE flag? What do you
>> > > > > > > want to achieve
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Without setting this flag IPv6 will try and make a link specific address.
>> > > 
>> > > You are talking about addrconf_notify() right? Easy to fix to check
>> > > something more convenient. Like netif_is_lag_port() if you want to avoid
>> > > it for bond/team. netif_is_ovs_port(), netif_is_bridge_port() etc. Lot's
>> > > of helpers to cover this.
>> > 
>> > OK, IPv6 should probably be using this.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Why is it not an issue with bridge, ovs, and other master-slave devices?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > It very well might be an issue for bridge and ovs.  Other master-slave
>> > > > devices include the existing VRF implementation in the kernel and those slave
>> > > > interfaces will certainly want to use IPv6.
>> > > > 
>> > > > However, IFF_SLAVE has a specific meaning:
>> > > > 
>> > > > ./include/uapi/linux/if.h: * @IFF_SLAVE: slave of a load balancer. Volatile.
>> > > 
>> > > I know that some userspace apps are using this flag to determine a
>> > > "bonding slave". I don't think that they care much about eql...
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > The bonding driver is not the only user:
>> > > > 
>> > > > ./drivers/net/eql.c:#define eql_is_slave(dev)	((dev->flags & IFF_SLAVE) ==
>> > > > IFF_SLAVE)
>> > > > ./drivers/net/eql.c:	slave->dev->flags &= ~IFF_SLAVE;
>> > > > ./drivers/net/eql.c:		slave->dev->flags |= IFF_SLAVE;
>> > > > 
>> > > > The team driver would like to use this same flag since it is a load balancer
>> > > > as well.  The side effect of not assigning IPv6 is a bonus. The fact that
>> > > 
>> > > No, please leave IFF_SLAVE as it is. Both kernel and userspace have
>> > > their clear indications right now about the master/slave relationships.
>> > 
>> > The team driver does create a master/slave relationship.  The team slaves are
>> > literally slaves of the master device.  It's not clear to me
>> > why you we can't mark the slaves of the team master as actually being
>> > slave interfaces?
>> 
>> So? IFF_SLAVE flag serves a different purpose. That's it. Team does not
>> need it, bridge does not need it, macvlan does not need it, etc.
>
>I agree.  But team *is* a load balancer.  Why can't team mark its slave
>interfaces as IFF_SLAVE?  They are literally slaves of a load balancer which
>is the exact meaning of the IFF_SLAVE flag.

I described that multiple times, don't want to repeat myself. Please
read the thread again.

>
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > > bridges and ovs are also likely broken is a different issue.  Should there be
>> > > > a another flag that says "layer 2 only"?  Very possibly, but that is
>> > > > something all these interfaces should be using to include bonding, team, eql,
>> > > > obs, bridge etc.  That's not a reasonable objection to labeling the team
>> > > > slave as slaves since they are literally slaves of a load balancer.
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > >