Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports

[Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>]

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.
> 
> 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.

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 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.