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 net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4
 mode
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@mellanox.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20191029135053.10055-1-mcroce@redhat.com>
 <20191029135053.10055-5-mcroce@redhat.com>
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <5be14e4e-807f-486d-d11a-3113901e72fe@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:35:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191029135053.10055-5-mcroce@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 29/10/2019 15:50, Matteo Croce wrote:
> The bonding uses the L4 ports to balance flows between slaves. As the ICMP
> protocol has no ports, those packets are sent all to the same device:
> 
>     # tcpdump -qltnni veth0 ip |sed 's/^/0: /' &
>     # tcpdump -qltnni veth1 ip |sed 's/^/1: /' &
>     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
>     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 315, seq 1, length 64
>     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 315, seq 1, length 64
>     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
>     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 316, seq 1, length 64
>     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 316, seq 1, length 64
>     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
>     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 317, seq 1, length 64
>     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 317, seq 1, length 64
> 
> But some ICMP packets have an Identifier field which is
> used to match packets within sessions, let's use this value in the hash
> function to balance these packets between bond slaves:
> 
>     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
>     0: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 303, seq 1, length 64
>     0: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 303, seq 1, length 64
>     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
>     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 304, seq 1, length 64
>     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 304, seq 1, length 64
> 
> Aso, let's use a flow_dissector_key which defines FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ICMP,

Also ?

> so we can balance pings encapsulated in a tunnel when using mode encap3+4:
> 
>     # ping -q 192.168.1.2 -c1
>     0: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo request, id 585, seq 1, length 64
>     0: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 585, seq 1, length 64
>     # ping -q 192.168.1.2 -c1
>     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo request, id 586, seq 1, length 64
>     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 586, seq 1, length 64
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 

Hi Matteo,
Wouldn't it be more useful and simpler to use some field to choose the slave (override the hash
completely) in a deterministic way from user-space ?
For example the mark can be interpreted as a slave id in the bonding (should be
optional, to avoid breaking existing setups). ping already supports -m and
anything else can set it, this way it can be used to do monitoring for a specific
slave with any protocol and would be a much simpler change.
User-space can then implement any logic for the monitoring case and as a minor bonus
can monitor the slaves in parallel. And the opposite as well - if people don't want
these balanced for some reason, they wouldn't enable it.

Or maybe I've misunderstood why this change is needed. :)
It would actually be nice to include the use-case which brought this on
in the commit message.

Cheers,
 Nik