linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work properly in bridge -try3

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]

Message-ID: <20090326111213.GA3471@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:12:14 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jgarzik@...ox.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kaber@...sh.net,
	mschmidt@...hat.com, dada1@...mosbay.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work
	properly in bridge -try3

Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 05:31:53PM CET, fubar@...ibm.com wrote:
>>@@ -2251,10 +2258,12 @@ int netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> 	null_or_orig = NULL;
>> 	orig_dev = skb->dev;
>> 	if (orig_dev->master) {
>>-		if (skb_bond_should_drop(skb))
>>+		if (skb_bond_should_drop(skb)) {
>> 			null_or_orig = orig_dev; /* deliver only exact match */
>>-		else
>>+		} else {
>> 			skb->dev = orig_dev->master;
>>+			bond_change_dest_hook(skb);
>
>	Since you put the hook outside of the skb_bond_should_drop
>function, does the VLAN accelerated receive path do the right thing if,
>e.g., there's a VLAN on top of bonding and that VLAN is part of the
>bridge?

Don't worry :) I did not forget about this - just needed a bit time to
investigate...

Yeah, this look's like a problem. In __vlan_hwaccel_rx there is following line:
	skb->dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK);
This rewrites the dev so latter on when netif_receive_skb is called the hook
will be not called (because dev->master will not be set).

Ok I will put the hook inside the skb_bond_should_drop() - it seems like a
correct solution...

Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>	-J
>
>---
>	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/