From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicolas_de_Peslo=FCan?= Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6] bonding: drop frames received with master's source MAC Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:45:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4D6C1764.1040008@gmail.com> References: <1298668408-14849-1-git-send-email-andy@greyhouse.net> <4D68276B.90104@gmail.com> <20110225222455.GI11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <4D683653.4050409@gmail.com> <20110228163255.GJ11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Herbert Xu , Jay Vosburgh , Jiri Pirko To: Andy Gospodarek Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:56827 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752252Ab1B1Vpe (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:45:34 -0500 Received: by bwz15 with SMTP id 15so4086629bwz.19 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:45:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110228163255.GJ11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 28/02/2011 17:32, Andy Gospodarek a =E9crit : > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:08:03AM +0100, Nicolas de Peslo=FCan wrote= : >> Le 25/02/2011 23:24, Andy Gospodarek a =E9crit : > [...] >>> >>> I confirmed your suspicion, this breaks ARP monitoring. I would st= ill >>> welcome other opinions though as I think it would be nice to fix th= is as >>> low as possible. >> >> Why do you want to fix it earlier that in ndisc_recv_ns drop? Your >> original idea of silently dropping the frame there seems perfect to = me. >> > > Maybe it's just me, but I cannot understand why we want a bunch of ex= tra > packets floating up into the stack when they may only create issues f= or > the recipients of these duplicate frames. > > Clearly my original patch needs to be refined so ARP monitoring still > works, but I would rather fix the issue there than in a higher layer. Jay explained that the current implementation should already trap those= frames, on inactive slaves,=20 in modes where inactive slaves exist. I agree with him. What mode are you seeing this problem in? If the current "should drop" = logic is leaking, then yes,=20 we should fix it. But we currently don't see where it is leaking. Nicolas.