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

[Chas Williams]

On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.

> > 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 ]