From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FE61FF183 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:30:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A0A0161FD; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:31:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:30:26 +0100 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Stefan Hanreich Message-ID: <20251217153026.1589c8d5@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20251216160513.360391-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20251216160513.360391-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1765981817629 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.071 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-common v2 1/1] fix #7153: iproute2: consider bonds as physical bridge ports X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" As I ran into this issue today - I took the time to check this out a bit closer. It fixes the issue of bond's vanishing from the bridge behind a vlan-vnet on a non-vlan-aware bridge. one opinionated nit inline: On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 17:05:10 +0100 Stefan Hanreich wrote: > The new check did not consider bonds, since ip_link_is_physical only > returns true for physical interfaces - but not bonds. Add a new > function to check for bonds explicitly and use it when checking for > bridge ports in activate_bridge_vlan. > > This bug caused VMs with network devices with VLAN tags, on > non-vlan-aware bridges, to not get started / migrated. > > Fixes: 057f62f7 > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich > --- > Changes from v1: > * improved commit message > * add missing definedness check > > src/PVE/IPRoute2.pm | 11 ++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/IPRoute2.pm b/src/PVE/IPRoute2.pm > index 5208d93..c60a91d 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/IPRoute2.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/IPRoute2.pm > @@ -32,6 +32,14 @@ sub ip_link_is_physical($ip_link) { > && (!defined($ip_link->{linkinfo}) || !defined($ip_link->{linkinfo}->{info_kind})); > } > > +sub ip_link_is_bond($ip_link) { > + return > + $ip_link->{link_type} eq 'ether' > + && defined($ip_link->{linkinfo}) > + && defined($ip_link->{linkinfo}->{info_kind}) > + && $ip_link->{linkinfo}->{info_kind} eq 'bond'; > +} > + > sub ip_link_is_bridge($ip_link) { > return > defined($ip_link->{linkinfo}) > @@ -67,7 +75,8 @@ sub get_physical_bridge_ports($bridge, $ip_links = undef) { > } not sure if a bond is a "physical" bridge-port, and not sure if this might cause confusion in the future - maybe non_guest_bridge_port?, egress_bridge_port? but as it's just a cosmetic fix (if an improvement at all)- the patch as is is fine! consider this: Reviewed-by: Stoiko Ivanov Tested-by: Stoiko Ivanov > > return grep { > - ip_link_is_physical($ip_links->{$_}) && $ip_links->{$_}->{master} eq $bridge > + (ip_link_is_physical($ip_links->{$_}) || ip_link_is_bond($ip_links->{$_})) > + && defined($ip_links->{$_}->{master}) && $ip_links->{$_}->{master} eq $bridge > } keys $ip_links->%*; > } > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel