On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
<sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/14/2018 5:03 PM, Siwei Liu wrote:
>>
>> Are we sure all userspace apps skip and ignore slave interfaces by
>> just looking at "IFLA_MASTER" attribute?
>>
>> When STANDBY is enabled on virtio-net, a failover master interface
>> will appear, which automatically enslaves the virtio device. But it is
>> found out that iSCSI (or any network boot) cannot boot strap over the
>> new failover interface together with a standby virtio (without any VF
>> or PT device in place).
>>
>> Dracut (initramfs) ends up with timeout and dropping into emergency shell:
>>
>> [ 228.170425] dracut-initqueue[377]: Warning: dracut-initqueue
>> timeout - starting timeout scripts
>> [ 228.171788] dracut-initqueue[377]: Warning: Could not boot.
>> Starting Dracut Emergency Shell...
>> Generating "/run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt"
>> Entering emergency mode. Exit the shell to continue.
>> Type "journalctl" to view system logs.
>> You might want to save "/run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt" to a USB stick or
>> /boot
>> after mounting them and attach it to a bug report.
>> dracut:/# ip l sh
>> 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
>> mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>> link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
>> 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue
>> state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>> link/ether 9a:46:22:ae:33:54 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff\
>> 3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
>> master eth0 state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>> link/ether 9a:46:22:ae:33:54 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>> dracut:/#
>>
>> If changing dracut code to ignore eth1 (with IFLA_MASTER attr),
>> network boot starts to work.
>
>
> Does dracut by default tries to use all the interfaces that are UP?
>
Yes. The specific dracut cmdline of our case is "ip=dhcp
netroot=iscsi:... ", but it's not specific to iscsi boot. And because
of same MAC address for failover and standby, while dracut tries to
run DHCP on all interfaces that are up it eventually gets same route
for each interface. Those conflict route entries kill off the network
connection.
>
>>
>> The reason is that dracut has its own means to differentiate virtual
>> interfaces for network boot: it does not look at IFLA_MASTER and
>> ignores slave interfaces. Instead, users have to provide explicit
>> option e.g. bond=eth0,eth1 in the boot line, then dracut would know
>> the config and ignore the slave interfaces.
>
>
> Isn't it possible to specify the interface that should be used for network
> boot?
As I understand it, one can only specify interface name for running
DHCP but not select interface for network boot. We want DHCP to run
on every NIC that is up (excluding the enslaved interfaces), and only
one of them can get a route entry to the network boot server (ie.g.
iSCSI target).
>
>
>>
>> However, with automatic creation of failover interface that assumption
>> is no longer true. Can we change dracut to ignore all slave interface
>> by checking IFLA_MASTER? I don't think so. It has a large impact to
>> existing configs.
>
>
> What is the issue with checking for IFLA_MASTER? I guess this is used with
> team/bonding setups.
That should be discussed within and determined by the dracut
community. But the current dracut code doesn't check IFLA_MASTER for
team or bonding specifically. I guess this change might have broader
impact to existing userspace that might be already relying on the
current behaviour.
Thanks,
-Siwei
>
>
>>
>> What's a feasible solution then? Check the driver name for failover as
>> well?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Siwei
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 06:52:21PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:45:01PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:32:30PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:13:43PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:39:33PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:26:26PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:17:37PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:14:22PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:12:40PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use the registration/notification framework supported by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failover infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In previous patchset versions, the common code did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should be part of the common "failover" code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flag for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and
>>>>>>>>>>>> IFF_SLAVE?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What breaks if we reuse it for failover?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is exposed to userspace. IFF_SLAVE is expected for bonding
>>>>>>>>> slaves.
>>>>>>>>> And failover slave is not a bonding slave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That does not really answer the question. I'd claim it's
>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>> like a bond slave for IFF_SLAVE to make sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact you will find that netvsc already sets IFF_SLAVE, and so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> netvsc does the whole failover thing in a wrong way. This patchset is
>>>>>>> trying to fix it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, but we don't need gratuitous changes either, especially if they
>>>>>> break userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by the "break"? It was a mistake to reuse IFF_SLAVE at
>>>>> the first place, lets fix it. If some userspace depends on that flag,
>>>>> it
>>>>> is broken anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> does e.g. the eql driver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The advantage of using IFF_SLAVE is that userspace knows to skip it.
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The userspace should know how to skip other types of slaves - team,
>>>>>>> bridge, ovs, etc.
>>>>>>> The "master link" should be the one to look at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How should existing userspace know which ones to skip and which one is
>>>>>> the master? Right now userspace seems to assume whatever does not
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> IFF_SLAVE should be looked at. Are you saying that's not the right
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say so? What do you mean by "looked at"? Certainly not.
>>>>> IFLA_MASTER is the attribute that should be looked at, nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to do and userspace should be fixed? What should userspace do in
>>>>>> your opinion that will be forward compatible with future kernels?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we don't set IFF_SLAVE existing userspace tries to use the lowerdev.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each master type has a IFF_ master flag and IFF_ slave flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you give some examples please?
>>>>>
>>>>> enum netdev_priv_flags {
>>>>> IFF_EBRIDGE = 1<<1,
>>>>> IFF_BRIDGE_PORT = 1<<9,
>>>>> IFF_OPENVSWITCH = 1<<20,
>>>>> IFF_OVS_DATAPATH = 1<<10,
>>>>> IFF_L3MDEV_MASTER = 1<<18,
>>>>> IFF_L3MDEV_SLAVE = 1<<21,
>>>>> IFF_TEAM = 1<<22,
>>>>> IFF_TEAM_PORT = 1<<13,
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> That's not in uapi, is it? the comment above that says:
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>> These flags are invisible to userspace
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> In private
>>>>>>> flag. I don't see no reason to break this pattern here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other masters are setup from userspace, this one is set up
>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>> by kernel. So the bar is higher, we need an interface that existing
>>>>>> userspace knows about. We can't just say "oh if userspace set this up
>>>>>> it should know to skip lowerdevs".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise multiple interfaces with same mac tend to confuse userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> No difference, really.
>>>>> Regardless who does the setup, and independent userspace deamon should
>>>>> react accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> If the deamon does the setup itself, it's reasonable to require that it
>>>> learns about new flags each time we add a new driver. If it doesn't,
>>>> then I think it's less reasonable.
>>>
>>> No need. The "IFLA_MASTER" attr is always there to be looked at. That is
>>> enough.
>
>
