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

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

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.

> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>