Re: BUG: bonding module can only be loaded once
From: Stephen Hemminger
Date: Tue Jun 09 2009 - 11:02:52 EST
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:06:44 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 June 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > In order to create multiple bonding dynamically, it is common practice to
> > load the bonding module multiple times. This got broken in recent kernels
> > 2.6.29 and later.
> > Doing the following will OOPS:
> > modprobe -o bond0 bonding
> > modprobe -o bond1 bonding
> > 2.6.29 actually OOPS on error handling, but that is fixed in 2.6.30.
> > But 2.6.30 still has the regression (caused by sysfs).
> > This regression was introduced by changes to sysfs and proc that
> > made duplicate insertion a problem.
> Well, I guess it's more like the changes just made it obvious that
> it's wrong to do this. Registering the same entries in procfs or sysfs
> means that the user will only be able to talk to one of the two
> bonding drivers through these interfaces.
> The log messages you quoted are not actually Oops but rather WARNING,
> which is (in this case) not fatal at all, just an indication that the
> root user did something he should not have:
> > [ 134.012578] WARNING: at fs/proc/generic.c:590 proc_register+0x154/0x191()
> > [ 134.012583] proc_dir_entry 'net/bonding' already registered
> > [ 134.014516] WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:487 sysfs_add_one+0xcc/0xe4()
> > [ 134.014521] sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/class/net/bonding_masters'
> The bonding driver could work around this by checking if the directories
> already exist before registering them. One can also add rtnl_link_ops to
> the driver for dynamically adding more interfaces.
> If you combine the two, you can even print a helpful message like 'please
> use "ip link add type bonding" instead of "modprobe -o bond0 bonding"'.
> In the mean time, you could probably work around this by ignoring the error
> condition (see below), but I would suspect that there may be more problems
> with the concept of just loading the module again. The best advice to
> users is probably to configure the maximum number of bonding devices they
> might need with the max_bonds= module parameter (if I understand that
> parameter correctly.
> Arnd <><
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -5203,7 +5203,7 @@ static int __init bonding_init(void)
> res = bond_create_sysfs();
> if (res)
> - goto err;
> + pr_info("Loading bonding module without sysfs interface\n");
That only makes it limp along, and there still are warnings.
The point is that who ever added the WARN() in proc and sysfs, effectively
broke a bonding usage model.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/