Michal Soltys <sol...@ziu.info> wrote:

>On 07/12/2018 04:51 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Michal Soltys <sol...@ziu.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As weird as that sounds, this is what I observed today after bumping
>>>> kernel version. I have a setup where 2 bonds are attached to linux
>>>> bridge and physically are connected to two switches doing MSTP (and
>>>> linux bridge is just passing them).
>>>>
>>>> Initially I suspected some changes related to bridge code - but quick
>>>> peek at the code showed nothing suspicious - and the part of it that
>>>> explicitly passes stp frames if stp is not enabled has seen little
>>>> changes (e.g. per-port group_fwd_mask added recently). Furthermore - if
>>>> regular non-bonded interfaces are attached everything works fine.
>>>>
>>>> Just to be sure I detached the bond (802.3ad mode) and checked it with
>>>> simple tcpdump (ether proto \\stp) - and indeed no hello packets were
>>>> there (with them being present just fine on active enslaved interface,
>>>> or on the bond device in earlier kernels).
>>>>
>>>> If time permits I'll bisect tommorow to pinpoint the commit, but from
>>>> quick todays test - 4.9.x is working fine, while 4.16.16 (tested on
>>>> debian) and 4.17.3 (tested on archlinux) are failing.
>>>>
>>>> Unless this is already a known issue (or you have any suggestions what
>>>> could be responsible).
>>>>
>>> I believe these are link-local-multicast messages and sometime back a
>>> change went into to not pass those frames to the bonding master. This
>>> could be the side effect of that.
>>
>>      Mahesh, I suspect you're thinking of:
>>
>> commit b89f04c61efe3b7756434d693b9203cc0cce002e
>> Author: Chonggang Li <chonggan...@google.com>
>> Date:   Sun Apr 16 12:02:18 2017 -0700
>>
>>      bonding: deliver link-local packets with skb->dev set to link that 
>> packets arrived on
>>
>>      Michal, are you able to revert this patch and test?
>>
>>      -J
>>
>> ---
>>      -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosbu...@canonical.com
>>
>
>
>Just tested - yes, reverting that patch solves the issues.

        Chonggang,

        Reading the changelog in your commit referenced above, I'm not
entirely sure what actual problem it is fixing.  Could you elaborate?

        As the patch appears to cause a regression, it needs to be
either fixed or reverted.

        Mahesh, you signed-off on it as well, perhaps you also have some
context?

        -J

---
        -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosbu...@canonical.com

Reply via email to