netdev - Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING'

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:	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:56 -0500
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@...driver.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Wu, Kuaikuai" <Kuaikuai.Wu@...driver.com>,
	"Tao, Yue" <Yue.Tao@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with
 'RUNNING'

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:57:45 +0800
yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@...driver.com> wrote:

> Hi, all
> 
> I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7:
> 
> 1. brctl addbr br0
> 
> 2. ifconfig br0 up
> 
> 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING')
> 
> 4. brctl addif br0 eth0
> 
> 5. brctl delif br0 eth0
> 
> 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING')
> 
> When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after the 
> last sub-interface is removed.
> 
> As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is 
> removed?

This is intentional. If there are no active ports in bridge, then
we want to tell applications that packets will go nowhere.
--
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