Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 288151
initscripts do not recognize 'arp_ip_target' bonding option correctly
Last modified: 2014-06-29 18:59:13 EDT
Description of problem:
Initscripts support for BONDING_OPTS in ifcfg-bondX doesn't work well with
'arp_ip_target' option. The idea was to make the BONDING_OPTS a direct
translation from the bonding module options that used to be listed in
/etc/modprobe.conf. Since there is the capability to specify multiple
arp_ip_targets like this:
when using module options we currently can't use that syntax. This would have
to be used
The attached patch fixes initscripts so the BONDING_OPTS parameter in
ifcfg-bondX can be used with the same syntax that was used for the bonding
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Created attachment 193751 [details]
Are there any other parameters that have unusual syntax?
Not that I know about. The only other sysfs entries that have multiple options
are the slaves and bonding masters ones that are not included in the
$ cat kernel-2.6.18/linux-2.6.18.x86_64/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt |
grep + | grep sys
# echo +foo > /sys/class/net/bonding_masters
# echo +eth0 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves
# echo +192.168.0.100 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/arp_ip_target
# echo +192.168.0.101 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/arp_ip_target
echo +eth0 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves
echo +eth1 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves
echo +bond1 > /sys/class/net/bonding_masters
echo +192.168.2.100 /sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/arp_ip_target
echo +eth2 > /sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/slaves
echo +eth3 > /sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/slaves
Inspection of drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c brings us to the same conclusion.
Created attachment 193961 [details]
Minor tweak to the patch, just moving the IFS stuff inside the loop.
You've got more bonding setups near at hand - it looks fine to me from a
regression standpoint, I'm assuming it works for you as well?
Actually, in retrospect, this is an issue that existed in RHEL 5 GA; it's not
new with 5.1 updates. Ergo, it doesn't really qualify. Raising for 5.2.
I know it's a bug against RHEL5 as well, but I was hoping not to do the
documentation twice (and confuse users twice).
This is the main reason why I'd like to see us fix this in 5.1. The bug is now
public. And for the record, Jay Vosburgh works for IBM and often sends issues
up to us via Issue Tracker.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed
products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update
Added in CVS.
You may test:
*** Bug 247718 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.