tipc: fix issues with early FAILOVER_MSG from peer
It appears that a FAILOVER_MSG can come from peer even when the failure link is resetting (i.e. just after the 'node_write_unlock()'...). This means the failover procedure on the node has not been started yet. The situation is as follows: node1 node2 linkb linka linka linkb | | | | | | x failure | | | RESETTING | | | | | | x failure RESET | | RESETTING FAILINGOVER | | | (FAILOVER_MSG) | | |<-------------------------------------------------| | *FAILINGOVER | | | | | (dummy FAILOVER_MSG) | | |------------------------------------------------->| | RESET | | FAILOVER_END | FAILINGOVER RESET | . . . . . . . . . . . . Once this happens, the link failover procedure will be triggered wrongly on the receiving node since the node isn't in FAILINGOVER state but then another link failover will be carried out. The consequences are: 1) A peer might get stuck in FAILINGOVER state because the 'sync_point' was set, reset and set incorrectly, the criteria to end the failover would not be met, it could keep waiting for a message that has already received. 2) The early FAILOVER_MSG(s) could be queued in the link failover deferdq but would be purged or not pulled out because the 'drop_point' was not set correctly. 3) The early FAILOVER_MSG(s) could be dropped too. 4) The dummy FAILOVER_MSG could make the peer leaving FAILINGOVER state shortly, but later on it would be restarted. The same situation can also happen when the link is in PEER_RESET state and a FAILOVER_MSG arrives. The commit resolves the issues by forcing the link down immediately, so the failover procedure will be started normally (which is the same as when receiving a FAILOVER_MSG and the link is in up state). Also, the function "tipc_node_link_failover()" is toughen to avoid such a situation from happening. Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.se> Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.lien@dektech.com.au> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment