Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:04:26PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> > > Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote:
>> > > > The code in net/ipv6/addrconf.c:addrconf_notify() tests for IFF_SLAVE to
>> > > > decide if it should start the address configuration. Since team ports
>> > > > shouldn't get link-local addresses assigned lets set IFF_SLAVE when linking
>> > > > a port to the team master.
>> > > 
>> > > I don't want to use IFF_SLAVE in team. Other master-slave devices are
>> > > not using that as well, for example bridge, ovs, etc.
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > Maybe they need to get fixed too. I've used that flag because it is
>> > documented as
>> > a "slave of a load balancer" which describes what a team port is.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > I think that this should be fixed in addrconf_notify. It should lookup
>> > > if there is a master on top and bail out in that case.
>> > 
>> > There are other virtual interfaces that have a master assigned and want to
>> > participate in IPv6 address configuration.
>> 
>> Can you give me an example?
>
>I would like to revisit this patch (yes, I know it has been a while).  I
>believe the VRF implementation uses master to group the interfaces under
>a single interface.
>
>I don't see a reason not to use IFF_SLAVE since team and bonding are fairly
>similar.

Again, why do you need team port to have IFF_SLAVE flag? What do you
want to achieve?


>
>> > 
>> > Unless we want to have a cascade of conditionals testing the priv_flags in
>> > addrconf_notify() this is asking for a new net_device_flags flag.
>> > Maybe something
>> > generic like IFF_L2PORT ?
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jan
>> > 
>> > [ Jiri, sorry for getting that mail twice ]
>> 
>> 
>>