search for: enslav

What is the maximum number of devices that can be enslaved in a bridge interface? I have tried enslaving 512 devices. Although the brctl tool did not complain while adding them, when I use brctl show command it only shows 255. Thanks

I have a bridge br0, it enslaves two NICs: eth0 and eth1. By using "cat /proc/net/dev ", i can see the Rx/Tx packets and bytes through each interface. just like this: [* time tick 1 *] Inter-| Receive | Transmit face |bytes packets errs drop fifo frame compressed...

...Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:08:59PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> > > Re. problem #2: >> > > Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> > > netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> > > And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> > > netdev to work in conjunction. >> > > And it's indeed desired that this enslavement logic work out...

...Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:08:59PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> > > Re. problem #2: >> > > Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> > > netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> > > And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> > > netdev to work in conjunction. >> > > And it's indeed desired that this enslavement logic work out...

Ahoy, I've encountered some confusing semantics with using PACKET(7) sockets on bridge-enslaved interfaces. Specifically, if my socket accepts all types of frame (bind() to ETH_P_ALL) then it gets all packets; but if it accepts any specific type (e.g. ETH_P_IP), then it receives no packets at all. That is how it's coded in net/core/dev.c's netif_receive_skb(). First ETH_P_ALL handl...

Setting up bonding in active-backup mode 1 (using ARP monitoring) on a server, it looked OK, but pulling the active link cable didn't actually work, it didn't fail over. Eventually with manual playing around with modprobe, ifconfig, ifenslave, etc., a solution was stumbled upon: enslave the eth1 device before eth0, and all is good. Why this should matter is a puzzle - I could not find anything in bonding.txt or on the web about it. I had to change ifup-eth to fix the problem. Any ideas on why the enslavement order matters, or a bett...

Hi all Assume that you have a linux bridge with two interfaces eth0 and eth1 enslaved to this bridge What is the difference between sniffing the bridge and sniffing its interfaces? tcpdump -i br0 vs tcpdump -i eth0 Thanks MiniME -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bridge/attachm...

...s was suggested by Lennart since udev is only doing naming policy > because kernel names were not repeatable. > > This makes the VF show up as "ethN_vf" on Hyper-V which is user friendly. > > Patch is pending. While it's good to show VF with specific naming to indicate enslavement, I wonder wouldn't it be better to hide this netdev at all from the user space? IMHO this extra device is useless when being enslaved and we may delegate controls (e.g. ethtool) over to the para-virtual device instead? That way it's possible to eliminate the possibility of additional u...

...s was suggested by Lennart since udev is only doing naming policy > because kernel names were not repeatable. > > This makes the VF show up as "ethN_vf" on Hyper-V which is user friendly. > > Patch is pending. While it's good to show VF with specific naming to indicate enslavement, I wonder wouldn't it be better to hide this netdev at all from the user space? IMHO this extra device is useless when being enslaved and we may delegate controls (e.g. ethtool) over to the para-virtual device instead? That way it's possible to eliminate the possibility of additional u...

...hine nics') You would also miss the hypervisors/hosts traffic if you sniffed the contained nics. -Joel On 16 February 2015 at 15:35, The Q <theq at rogers.com> wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > Assume that you have a linux bridge with two interfaces eth0 and eth1 > enslaved to this bridge > > What is the difference between sniffing the bridge and sniffing its > interfaces? > > > > tcpdump -i br0 vs tcpdump ?i eth0 > > > > Thanks > > MiniME > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: &l...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:48:13 -0400 Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at oracle.com> wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happ...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:48:13 -0400 Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at oracle.com> wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happ...

...s part of the t= wo nets - even if there is one phsical connection) So my virtual nets are implemented by linux bridges. But if I now connect t= he physical interface eth0 to the bridge Net3 and then to Net6 the followin= g error occurs: "device eth0 is already a member of a bridge; can't enslave= it to bridge Net6" = Is this a bug or a feature? Why is it not allowed to bind an Interface to t= wo different bridges? = Is there a workaround for this issue? Problem: = UML1 ---- bridge1 \ eth0 = UML2 ---- bridge2 / Workaround?: UML1 ---- bridge1 \...

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:47AM -0400, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happ...

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:47AM -0400, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happ...

...0, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> >> > > Re. problem #2: >> >> > > Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> >> > > netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> >> > > And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> >> > > netdev to work in conjunction. >> >> > > And it's indeed desired...

...0, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> >> > > Re. problem #2: >> >> > > Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> >> > > netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> >> > > And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> >> > > netdev to work in conjunction. >> >> > > And it's indeed desired...

On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> Re. problem #2: >> Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> netdev to work in conjunction. >> And it's indeed desired that this enslavement logic work out-of-the box. >> But in case of PV+...

On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> Re. problem #2: >> Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> netdev to work in conjunction. >> And it's indeed desired that this enslavement logic work out-of-the box. >> But in case of PV+...

...system with a direct assigned networking device. The problem I >> see with these implementations is that the network configuration >> requirements that are passed on to the owner of the VM are quite >> complicated. You have to set up bonding, you have to configure it to >> enslave two interfaces, those interfaces (one is virtio-net, the other >> is SR-IOV device/driver like ixgbevf) must support MAC address changes >> requested in the VM, and on and on... >> >> So, on to the proposal: >> Modify virtio-net driver to be a single VM network device...