2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-02-09 23:25:21 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2011-05-30 10:48:48 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:08 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-11 13:30:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-11 13:30:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-11 13:30:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-12-29 20:43:44 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2015-02-05 08:36:43 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-18 13:50:51 -05:00
|
|
|
|
tipc: introduce communication groups
As a preparation for introducing flow control for multicast and datagram
messaging we need a more strictly defined framework than we have now. A
socket must be able keep track of exactly how many and which other
sockets it is allowed to communicate with at any moment, and keep the
necessary state for those.
We therefore introduce a new concept we have named Communication Group.
Sockets can join a group via a new setsockopt() call TIPC_GROUP_JOIN.
The call takes four parameters: 'type' serves as group identifier,
'instance' serves as an logical member identifier, and 'scope' indicates
the visibility of the group (node/cluster/zone). Finally, 'flags' makes
it possible to set certain properties for the member. For now, there is
only one flag, indicating if the creator of the socket wants to receive
a copy of broadcast or multicast messages it is sending via the socket,
and if wants to be eligible as destination for its own anycasts.
A group is closed, i.e., sockets which have not joined a group will
not be able to send messages to or receive messages from members of
the group, and vice versa.
Any member of a group can send multicast ('group broadcast') messages
to all group members, optionally including itself, using the primitive
send(). The messages are received via the recvmsg() primitive. A socket
can only be member of one group at a time.
Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2017-10-13 11:04:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:11 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-02 13:44:26 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:08 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tipc: support in-order name publication events
It is observed that TIPC service binding order will not be kept in the
publication event report to user if the service is subscribed after the
bindings.
For example, services are bound by application in the following order:
Server: bound port A to {18888,66,66} scope 2
Server: bound port A to {18888,33,33} scope 2
Now, if a client subscribes to the service range (e.g. {18888, 0-100}),
it will get the 'TIPC_PUBLISHED' events in that binding order only when
the subscription is started before the bindings.
Otherwise, if started after the bindings, the events will arrive in the
opposite order:
Client: received event for published {18888,33,33}
Client: received event for published {18888,66,66}
For the latter case, it is clear that the bindings have existed in the
name table already, so when reported, the events' order will follow the
order of the rbtree binding nodes (- a node with lesser 'lower'/'upper'
range value will be first).
This is correct as we provide the tracking on a specific service status
(available or not), not the relationship between multiple services.
However, some users expect to see the same order of arriving events
irrespective of when the subscription is issued. This turns out to be
easy to fix. We now add functionality to ensure that publication events
always are issued in the same temporal order as the corresponding
bindings were performed.
v2: replace the unnecessary macro - 'publication_after()' with inline
function.
v3: reuse 'time_after32()' instead of reinventing the same exact code.
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.lien@dektech.com.au>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-11-21 15:34:58 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-29 10:32:43 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tipc: support in-order name publication events
It is observed that TIPC service binding order will not be kept in the
publication event report to user if the service is subscribed after the
bindings.
For example, services are bound by application in the following order:
Server: bound port A to {18888,66,66} scope 2
Server: bound port A to {18888,33,33} scope 2
Now, if a client subscribes to the service range (e.g. {18888, 0-100}),
it will get the 'TIPC_PUBLISHED' events in that binding order only when
the subscription is started before the bindings.
Otherwise, if started after the bindings, the events will arrive in the
opposite order:
Client: received event for published {18888,33,33}
Client: received event for published {18888,66,66}
For the latter case, it is clear that the bindings have existed in the
name table already, so when reported, the events' order will follow the
order of the rbtree binding nodes (- a node with lesser 'lower'/'upper'
range value will be first).
This is correct as we provide the tracking on a specific service status
(available or not), not the relationship between multiple services.
However, some users expect to see the same order of arriving events
irrespective of when the subscription is issued. This turns out to be
easy to fix. We now add functionality to ensure that publication events
always are issued in the same temporal order as the corresponding
bindings were performed.
v2: replace the unnecessary macro - 'publication_after()' with inline
function.
v3: reuse 'time_after32()' instead of reinventing the same exact code.
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.lien@dektech.com.au>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-11-21 15:34:58 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:30 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:08 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:12 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
tipc: support in-order name publication events
It is observed that TIPC service binding order will not be kept in the
publication event report to user if the service is subscribed after the
bindings.
For example, services are bound by application in the following order:
Server: bound port A to {18888,66,66} scope 2
Server: bound port A to {18888,33,33} scope 2
Now, if a client subscribes to the service range (e.g. {18888, 0-100}),
it will get the 'TIPC_PUBLISHED' events in that binding order only when
the subscription is started before the bindings.
Otherwise, if started after the bindings, the events will arrive in the
opposite order:
Client: received event for published {18888,33,33}
Client: received event for published {18888,66,66}
For the latter case, it is clear that the bindings have existed in the
name table already, so when reported, the events' order will follow the
order of the rbtree binding nodes (- a node with lesser 'lower'/'upper'
range value will be first).
This is correct as we provide the tracking on a specific service status
(available or not), not the relationship between multiple services.
However, some users expect to see the same order of arriving events
irrespective of when the subscription is issued. This turns out to be
easy to fix. We now add functionality to ensure that publication events
always are issued in the same temporal order as the corresponding
bindings were performed.
v2: replace the unnecessary macro - 'publication_after()' with inline
function.
v3: reuse 'time_after32()' instead of reinventing the same exact code.
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.lien@dektech.com.au>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-11-21 15:34:58 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tipc: support in-order name publication events
It is observed that TIPC service binding order will not be kept in the
publication event report to user if the service is subscribed after the
bindings.
For example, services are bound by application in the following order:
Server: bound port A to {18888,66,66} scope 2
Server: bound port A to {18888,33,33} scope 2
Now, if a client subscribes to the service range (e.g. {18888, 0-100}),
it will get the 'TIPC_PUBLISHED' events in that binding order only when
the subscription is started before the bindings.
Otherwise, if started after the bindings, the events will arrive in the
opposite order:
Client: received event for published {18888,33,33}
Client: received event for published {18888,66,66}
For the latter case, it is clear that the bindings have existed in the
name table already, so when reported, the events' order will follow the
order of the rbtree binding nodes (- a node with lesser 'lower'/'upper'
range value will be first).
This is correct as we provide the tracking on a specific service status
(available or not), not the relationship between multiple services.
However, some users expect to see the same order of arriving events
irrespective of when the subscription is issued. This turns out to be
easy to fix. We now add functionality to ensure that publication events
always are issued in the same temporal order as the corresponding
bindings were performed.
v2: replace the unnecessary macro - 'publication_after()' with inline
function.
v3: reuse 'time_after32()' instead of reinventing the same exact code.
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.lien@dektech.com.au>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-11-21 15:34:58 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:30 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-04 21:02:34 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-29 10:32:43 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:52 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:52 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-29 10:32:43 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-29 10:32:43 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-04 21:02:34 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-29 23:20:41 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-15 16:48:52 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tipc: eliminate message disordering during binding table update
We have seen the following race scenario:
1) named_distribute() builds a "bulk" message, containing a PUBLISH
item for a certain publication. This is based on the contents of
the binding tables's 'cluster_scope' list.
2) tipc_named_withdraw() removes the same publication from the list,
bulds a WITHDRAW message and distributes it to all cluster nodes.
3) tipc_named_node_up(), which was calling named_distribute(), sends
out the bulk message built under 1)
4) The WITHDRAW message arrives at the just detected node, finds
no corresponding publication, and is dropped.
5) The PUBLISH item arrives at the same node, is added to its binding
table, and remains there forever.
This arrival disordering was earlier taken care of by the backlog queue,
originally added for a different purpose, which was removed in the
commit referred to below, but we now need a different solution.
In this commit, we replace the rcu lock protecting the 'cluster_scope'
list with a regular RW lock which comprises even the sending of the
bulk message. This both guarantees both the list integrity and the
message sending order. We will later add a commit which cleans up
this code further.
Note that this commit needs recently added commit d3092b2efca1 ("tipc:
fix unsafe rcu locking when accessing publication list") to apply
cleanly.
Fixes: 37922ea4a310 ("tipc: permit overlapping service ranges in name table")
Reported-by: Tuong Lien Tong <tuong.t.lien@dektech.com.au>
Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-10-19 19:55:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
tipc: update a binding service via broadcast
Currently, updating binding table (add service binding to
name table/withdraw a service binding) is being sent over replicast.
However, if we are scaling up clusters to > 100 nodes/containers this
method is less affection because of looping through nodes in a cluster one
by one.
It is worth to use broadcast to update a binding service. This way, the
binding table can be updated on all peer nodes in one shot.
Broadcast is used when all peer nodes, as indicated by a new capability
flag TIPC_NAMED_BCAST, support reception of this message type.
Four problems need to be considered when introducing this feature.
1) When establishing a link to a new peer node we still update this by a
unicast 'bulk' update. This may lead to race conditions, where a later
broadcast publication/withdrawal bypass the 'bulk', resulting in
disordered publications, or even that a withdrawal may arrive before the
corresponding publication. We solve this by adding an 'is_last_bulk' bit
in the last bulk messages so that it can be distinguished from all other
messages. Only when this message has arrived do we open up for reception
of broadcast publications/withdrawals.
2) When a first legacy node is added to the cluster all distribution
will switch over to use the legacy 'replicast' method, while the
opposite happens when the last legacy node leaves the cluster. This
entails another risk of message disordering that has to be handled. We
solve this by adding a sequence number to the broadcast/replicast
messages, so that disordering can be discovered and corrected. Note
however that we don't need to consider potential message loss or
duplication at this protocol level.
3) Bulk messages don't contain any sequence numbers, and will always
arrive in order. Hence we must exempt those from the sequence number
control and deliver them unconditionally. We solve this by adding a new
'is_bulk' bit in those messages so that they can be recognized.
4) Legacy messages, which don't contain any new bits or sequence
numbers, but neither can arrive out of order, also need to be exempt
from the initial synchronization and sequence number check, and
delivered unconditionally. Therefore, we add another 'is_not_legacy' bit
to all new messages so that those can be distinguished from legacy
messages and the latter delivered directly.
v1->v2:
- fix warning issue reported by kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
- add santiy check to drop the publication message with a sequence
number that is lower than the agreed synch point
Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hoang Huu Le <hoang.h.le@dektech.com.au>
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-06-17 13:56:05 +07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-12-02 15:00:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-20 10:29:20 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:15 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:16 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-02 13:44:26 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:17 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:18 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tipc: introduce communication groups
As a preparation for introducing flow control for multicast and datagram
messaging we need a more strictly defined framework than we have now. A
socket must be able keep track of exactly how many and which other
sockets it is allowed to communicate with at any moment, and keep the
necessary state for those.
We therefore introduce a new concept we have named Communication Group.
Sockets can join a group via a new setsockopt() call TIPC_GROUP_JOIN.
The call takes four parameters: 'type' serves as group identifier,
'instance' serves as an logical member identifier, and 'scope' indicates
the visibility of the group (node/cluster/zone). Finally, 'flags' makes
it possible to set certain properties for the member. For now, there is
only one flag, indicating if the creator of the socket wants to receive
a copy of broadcast or multicast messages it is sending via the socket,
and if wants to be eligible as destination for its own anycasts.
A group is closed, i.e., sockets which have not joined a group will
not be able to send messages to or receive messages from members of
the group, and vice versa.
Any member of a group can send multicast ('group broadcast') messages
to all group members, optionally including itself, using the primitive
send(). The messages are received via the recvmsg() primitive. A socket
can only be member of one group at a time.
Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2017-10-13 11:04:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:11 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:13 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:12 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-16 22:06:13 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-11 22:52:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-29 20:43:44 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-09 15:27:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-13 11:04:22 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-18 13:50:51 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-27 09:32:26 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-18 13:50:51 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-13 11:04:22 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-05 08:36:43 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2006-01-02 19:04:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
