From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jv@jvosburgh.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Liang Li <liali@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] Bonding: change bond dev_addr when fail_over_mac=2
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 01:50:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z5BO57CBUEL6gRUX@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3990673.1737505950@famine>
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 04:32:30PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I saw in __bond_release_one() we have
> >
> > if (!all && (!bond->params.fail_over_mac ||
> > BOND_MODE(bond) != BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP)) {
> > if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(bond_dev->dev_addr, slave->perm_hwaddr) &&
> > bond_has_slaves(bond))
> > slave_warn(bond_dev, slave_dev, "the permanent HWaddr of slave - %pM - is still in use by bond - set the HWaddr of slave to a different address to avoid conflicts\n",
> > slave->perm_hwaddr);
> > }
>
> If I'm reading it right, I don't think the above will trigger
> the message for your example, as "!bond->params.fail_over_mac" and
> "BOND_MODE(bond) != BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP" are both false.
Ah, yes. I need to read carefully.
>
> >So why not just change the bond_dev->dev_addr to another slave's perm_hwaddr
> >instead of keep using the released one?
>
> That would cause the MAC of the bond itself to change without
> user intervention, and the active-backup mode won't change the bond's
> MAC except for the case of fail_over_mac=1. It's not uncommon for the
> network to have dependencies on the MAC address itself, e.g., MAC based
> permission rules. There's also an cost associated with changing the
> MAC, requiring a gratuitous ARP and some propagation time.
>
> What you describe is also the behavior for active-backup with
> fail_over_mac=0, in that the bond will keep using the MAC gleaned from
> the first interface even if that interface is removed from the bond, so
> it's not really something specific to fail_over_mac=2.
Thanks for your explanation.
>
> I don't think bonding should automatically adopt a new MAC
> address in this case, but loosening the logic on the warning message
> would be ok.
OK, I will try add a warning for this issue.
Thanks
Hangbin
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-22 1:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-21 10:09 [Question] Bonding: change bond dev_addr when fail_over_mac=2 Hangbin Liu
2025-01-22 0:32 ` Jay Vosburgh
2025-01-22 1:50 ` Hangbin Liu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z5BO57CBUEL6gRUX@fedora \
--to=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
--cc=jv@jvosburgh.net \
--cc=liali@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).