Am 11.07.2013 11:42, schrieb Gao feng:
> On 07/11/2013 03:18 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2013 11:42, schrieb Gao feng:
>>> On 07/10/2013 03:23 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>> Am 10.07.2013 09:03, schrieb Gao feng:
>>>>> On 07/10/2013 02:00 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes,actually libvirt did up the veth devices, that's why only veth2& veth5 are down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does libvirt up the devices? The debug log does not contain any "ip link set dev XXX up" commands.
>>>>>> Also in src/util/virnetdevveth.c I'm unable to find such a ip command.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> virLXCProcessSetupInterfaceBridged calls virNetDevSetOnline.
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh, it's using an ioctl().
>>>>
>>>>>>> I need to know why these two devices are down, I believe they were up, your bridge and default-net
>>>>>>> looks good. So please show me your kernel message (dmesg), maybe it can give us some useful information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This time veth4 and 5 are down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---cut---
>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 44.158209] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): veth4: link is not ready
>>>>>> [ 44.473317] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): veth4: link becomes ready
>>>>>> [ 44.473400] virbr0: topology change detected, propagating
>>>>>> [ 44.473407] virbr0: port 5(veth4) entered forwarding state
>>>>>> [ 44.473423] virbr0: port 5(veth4) entered forwarding state
>>>>>
>>>>> veth4 were up here
>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 44.566186] device veth5 entered promiscuous mode
>>>>>> [ 44.571234] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): veth5: link is not ready
>>>>>> [ 44.571243] virbr0: topology change detected, propagating
>>>>>> [ 44.571250] virbr0: port 6(veth5) entered forwarding state
>>>>>> [ 44.571261] virbr0: port 6(veth5) entered forwarding state
>>>>>> [ 44.902308] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): veth5: link becomes ready
>>>>>> [ 45.000580] virbr0: port 5(veth4) entered disabled state
>>>>>
>>>>> and then it became down.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 45.348548] virbr0: port 6(veth5) entered disabled state
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Some places disable the veth4 and veth5.
>>>>> I don't know in which case these two devices will be disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still can't reproduce this problem in my test bed :(
>>>>> I need more information to analyse why these two device being disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, can you run kernel with the below debug patch?
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
>>>>> index d45e760..aed319b 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
>>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ void br_stp_disable_port(struct net_bridge_port *p)
>>>>> p->state = BR_STATE_DISABLED;
>>>>> p->topology_change_ack = 0;
>>>>> p->config_pending = 0;
>>>>> -
>>>>> + dump_stack();
>>>>> br_log_state(p);
>>>>> br_ifinfo_notify(RTM_NEWLINK, p);
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>>>> index faebb39..9b1617b 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>>>> @@ -1368,6 +1368,7 @@ static int dev_close_many(struct list_head *head)
>>>>>
>>>>> list_for_each_entry(dev, head, unreg_list) {
>>>>> rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, dev, IFF_UP|IFF_RUNNING);
>>>>> + dump_stack();
>>>>> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_DOWN, dev);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -4729,8 +4730,10 @@ void __dev_notify_flags(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int old_flags)
>>>>> if (changes & IFF_UP) {
>>>>> if (dev->flags & IFF_UP)
>>>>> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_UP, dev);
>>>>> - else
>>>>> + else {
>>>>> + dump_stack();
>>>>> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_DOWN, dev);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> if (dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you go:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much.
>>>
>>>> [ 129.084408] CPU: 1 PID: 4473 Comm: ip Not tainted 3.10.0+ #20
>>>> [ 129.084412] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
>>>> [ 129.084415] ffff88003760d000 ffff88003ce7f798 ffffffff8172b2a6 ffff88003ce7f7b8
>>>> [ 129.084419] ffffffff8154be04 ffff88003760d000 0000000000001103 ffff88003ce7f7e8
>>>> [ 129.084422] ffffffff8154be60 0000000000000010 ffff88003760d000 ffff88003ce7f918
>>>> [ 129.084426] Call Trace:
>>>
>>>> [ 129.084821] virbr0: port 6(veth5) entered disabled state
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can confirm it's the ip command disable the veth device now.
>>> but I still don't know who calls ip and why.
>>>
>>> I search the libvirt code, there are no codes calling "ip link set xxx down".
>>>
>>> It's so strange...
>>>
>>> Give you an advice, modify the code of ip(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shemminger/iproute2.git).
>>> use read /proc/<getppid>/comm to trace which command calls ip.
>>
>> This morning I've installed a wrapper around ip to show me the process tree upon ip link ... down is used.
>> The log showed this:
>>
>> 769 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
>> 17759 ? S 0:00 \_ /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
>> 17764 ? S 0:00 \_ /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
>> 17772 ? S 0:00 \_ /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
>> 19477 ? S 0:00 | \_ /bin/bash /sbin/ifdown veth5 -o hotplug
>> 19910 ? S 0:00 | \_ /sbin/ip link set dev veth5 down
>>
>> Now I have to urge to use a "Kantholz". ;-)
>>
>
> hmmm...
>
> it's systemd... I have no idea now... :(
TBH it is not systemd's fault.
OpenSUSE's /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/77-network.rules did not white list veth* devices.
Therefore systemd-udevd called ifup/down and other hotplug magic.
Thanks,
//richard
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list