On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 05:00:14PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > 2025-04-03, 13:09:02 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote: > > Hi Sabrina, > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 12:28:54PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > Hello Hangbin, > > > > > > 2025-04-03, 08:58:55 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote: > > > > When setting the lower-layer link up/down, the ipvlan device > > > > synchronizes > > > > its state via netif_stacked_transfer_operstate(), which only checks the > > > > carrier state. However, setting the link down does not necessarily > > > > change > > > > the carrier state for virtual interfaces like bonding. This causes the > > > > ipvlan state to become out of sync with the lower-layer link state. > > > > > > > > If the lower link and ipvlan are in the same namespace, this issue is > > > > hidden because ip link show checks the link state in IFLA_LINK and has > > > > a m_flag to control the state, displaying M-DOWN in the flags. However, > > > > if the ipvlan and the lower link are in different namespaces, this > > > > information is not available, and the ipvlan link state remains > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > Is the issue with the actual behavior (sending/receiving packets, > > > etc), or just in how it's displayed by iproute? > > > > The upper link in netns up while lower link down will cause the traffic > > break > > in the pod. > > That seems like the correct behavior based on the actual (not > displayed) state of the links.
Hmm, since this behavior is controversial, do you think if we should drop this until some users request? > > > I wonder if netif_stacked_transfer_operstate should consider the admin > state of the lower device as well as link state: > > @@ -10724,7 +10724,7 @@ void netif_stacked_transfer_operstate(const struct > net_device *rootdev, > else > netif_testing_off(dev); > > - if (netif_carrier_ok(rootdev)) > + if (netif_carrier_ok(rootdev) && rootdev->flags & IFF_UP) > netif_carrier_on(dev); > else > netif_carrier_off(dev); > > > but I haven't looked at all the consequences and possible side > effects. I'm not sure. Only sync link carrier seems reasonable too. Thanks Hangbin
