netdev - Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:15:24 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	mpm@...enic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	gospo@...hat.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
	jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding
 devices

David Miller wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:47:39 +0800
> 
>> Yeah, for bonding case, probably. But for bridge case, I think
>> we still need to check all, right?
> 
> Why?  Who cares?
> 
> If it goes out one port and reaches it's destination
> the objective has been achieved.
> 
> Sending it out N more times achieves nothing.

We have to check which port has the right destination.

Ideally we should check the right destination address to
choose the port, but currently we don't have a generic
way to check this, thus I chose to send it to all ports.
You are right, this needs to be improved.

Thanks!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html