On 02/08/2018 7:35 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
Hi Chas, Radu
From: Chas Williams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
wrote:
On 8/1/2018 2:34 PM, Chas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:04 AM Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
wrote:
Update the bonding promiscuous mode enable/disable functions as to
propagate the change to all slaves instead of doing nothing; this
seems to be the correct behaviour according to the standard, and also
implemented in the linux network stack.
Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 8 ++------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
index ad6e33f..16105cb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
@@ -2617,12 +2617,10 @@ bond_ethdev_promiscuous_enable(struct
rte_eth_dev
*eth_dev)
case BONDING_MODE_ROUND_ROBIN:
case BONDING_MODE_BALANCE:
case BONDING_MODE_BROADCAST:
+ case BONDING_MODE_8023AD:
for (i = 0; i < internals->slave_count; i++)
rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(internals->slaves[i].port_id);
break;
- /* In mode4 promiscus mode is managed when slave is
added/removed
*/
This comment is true (and it appears it is always on in 802.3ad mode):
/* use this port as agregator */
port->aggregator_port_id = slave_id;
rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(slave_id);
If we are going to do this here, we should probably get rid of it in
the other location so that future readers aren't confused about which
is the one doing the work.
Since some adapters don't have group multicast support, we might
already be in promiscuous anyway. Turning off promiscuous for the
bonding master might turn it off in the slaves where an application
has already enabled it.
The idea was to preserve the current behavior except for the explicit
promiscuous disable/enable APIs; an application may disable the
promiscuous mode on the bonding port and then enable it back,
expecting it to propagate to the slaves.
Yes, but an application doing that will break 802.3ad because promiscuous
mode is used to receive the LAG PDUs which are on a multicast group.
That's why this code doesn't let you disable promiscuous when you are in
802.3ad mode.
If you want to do this it needs to be more complicated. In 802.3ad, you should
try to add the multicast group to the slave interface. If that fails, turn on
promisc mode for the slave. Make note of it. Later if bonding wants to
enabled/disable promisc mode for the slaves, it needs to check if that slaves
needs to remain in promisc to continue to get the LAG PDUs.
I agree with Chas that this commit will hurt current LACP logic, but maybe this
is the time to open discussion about it:
The current bonding implementation is greedy while it setting promiscuous
automatically for LACP,
The user asks LACP and he gets promiscuous by the way.
So if the user don't want promiscuous he must to disable it directly via slaves
ports and to allow LACP using rte_flow\flow
director\set_mc_addr_list\allmulti...
I think the best way is to let the user to enable LACP as he wants, directly
via slaves or by the bond promiscuous_enable API.
For sure, it must be documented well.
Matan.
I'm thinking that default behavior should be that promiscuous mode
should be disabled by default, and that the bond port should fail to
start if any of the slave ports can't support subscription to the LACP
multicast group. At this point the user can decided to enable
promiscuous mode on the bond port (and therefore on all the slaves) and
then start the bond. If we have slaves with different configurations for
multicast subscriptions or promiscuous mode enablement, then there is
potentially the opportunity for inconsistency in traffic depending on
which slaves are active.
Personally I would prefer that all configuration if possible is
propagated through the bond port. So if a user wants to use a port which
doesn't support multicast subscription then all ports in the bond need
to be in promiscuous mode, and the user needs to explicitly enable it
through the bond port, that way at least we can guarantee consist
traffic irrespective of which ports in the bond are active at any one time.
