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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:30:58 +0200 From: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net> To: Vitalii Demianets <vitas@...factor.kiev.ua> Cc: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Srinivas M.A." <srinivas.aji@...il.com>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> Subject: Re: Introducing open source MSTP daemon On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:36:04AM +0300, Vitalii Demianets wrote: > I suppose these questions are not related to kernel development so I suggest > to continue discussion on above topics at the project discussion board: > http://sourceforge.net/p/mstpd/discussion/ That's a forum - I'm afraid that's not quite a good communication channel for software development feedback. A "normal" software developer probably has 10, 20, 30... packages he follows around; if each of them was using a separate discussion forum, the developer would have to check 30 forums regularly, in hir browser. A mailing list delivers all of that discussion to the developer's mailbox where it's very easy to sort, follow & respond. Considering the probably rather low traffic, an existing list might even do it. > > I assume it works with current Linux kernel bridge code on a RSTP level? > > The code looks considerably more maintainable than rstpd :) - I will try > > running it later! > > > Sorry, at the moment function MSTP_OUT_set_state() does nothing except > logging. But it is valueable thought: although MSTI states do not have > meaning to the kernel bridge code, CIST states can be used to control bridge > slave states, so mstpd can replace rstpd as more generic (and conforming to > more recent standard). Well, with the current kernel code you can basically support MSTP setups where all VLANs are mapped to one MSTI, since there's just one port state for all VLANs. As far as I can tell, that doesn't need to be the CIST/instance 0, as long as it's the same for all VLANs. > Anyways, the code is basically untested. It compiles and runs in my setup, > that's all for now. But I somehow have gut feeling that the code is mature > enough to be put for the community consideration. Well, "the community" is usually happy when you continually maintain and improve your code - one-shot code publications ("fire & forget") happen all too often and are forgotten quickly... -David -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists