On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:35:56PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
> The current logic in bond_arp_rcv will accept an incoming ARP for
> validation if (a) the receiving slave is either "active" (which includes
> the currently active slave, or the current ARP slave) or, (b) there is a
> currently active slave, and it has received an ARP since it became active.
> For case (b), the receiving slave isn't the currently active slave, and is
> receiving the original broadcast ARP request, not an ARP reply from the
> target.
>
> This logic can fail if there is no currently active slave. In
> this situation, the ARP probe logic cycles through all slaves, assigning
> each in turn as the "current_arp_slave" for one arp_interval, then setting
> that one as "active," and sending an ARP probe from that slave. The
> current logic expects the ARP reply to arrive on the sending
> current_arp_slave, however, due to switch FDB updating delays, the reply
> may be directed to another slave.
>
> This can arise if the bonding slaves and switch are working, but
> the ARP target is not responding. When the ARP target recovers, a
> condition may result wherein the ARP target host replies faster than the
> switch can update its forwarding table, causing each ARP reply to be sent
> to the previous current_arp_slave. This will never pass the logic in
> bond_arp_rcv, as neither of the above conditions (a) or (b) are met.
>
> Some experimentation on a LAN shows ARP reply round trips in the
> 200 usec range, but my available switches never update their FDB in less
> than 4000 usec.
>
> This patch changes the logic in bond_arp_rcv to additionally
> accept an ARP reply for validation on any slave if there is a current ARP
> slave and it sent an ARP probe during the previous arp_interval.
>
> Fixes: aeea64ac717a ("bonding: don't trust arp requests unless active slave
> really works")
> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfal...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andy Gospodarek <go...@cumulusnetworks.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosbu...@canonical.com>
>
> ---
> v2: more detail in log and comment; no code change.
This sounds suspiciously like the same problem Uwe was encountering[*] and
attempting to solve. Uwe, can you give this patch a try?
[*] = http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=144416122705850&w=2
--
Jarod Wilson
ja...@redhat.com
