Re: [net-next] bonding: don't allow the master to become its slave

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:43:31AM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
>From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
>Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:27:08 -0700
>
>> 	If that's hard to do (and it might be; I'm not aware of a
>> standard way to run up and down those stacks of interfaces, which might
>> not always be vlans in the middle), there's still the priv_flags &
>> IFF_BONDING test that bonding could (and probably should) do itself as
>> well.  The team driver could presumably have a similar test, although I
>> seem to recall that team was allowed to nest.
>> 
>> 	FWIW, I've seen both the top and bottom halves of that picture
>> in use (i.e., bonds consisting of vlans as slaves or bonds with vlans
>> configured above them), but not combined as in your diagram.
>
>We're basically looking for cycles in a complex graph.
>
>Some combination of Jay and Ben's most recent patches, with some minor
>modifications, ought to do it.


Hmm. Would be probably good to have list/table of related devices,
possibly with information about the relation.
After that, every relation add would check for loops.

I will dive in the code over the weekend to see if this is doable in
some nice way.

>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html