linux-kernel - Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 1/3] bridge: preserve random init MAC address

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:	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 01:09:10 +0900
From:	Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 1/3] bridge: preserve random init MAC address

On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 18:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Toshiaki Makita
> <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > (2014/03/19 9:50), Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Toshiaki Makita
> >> <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> >>> nit,
> >>> If the last detached port happens to have the same addr as
> >>> random_init_addr, this seems to call br_stp_change_bridge_id() even
> >>> though bridge_id is not changed.
> >>
> >> Ah good point.
> >>
> >>> Shouldn't the assignment of random_init_addr be done before the check of
> >>> "no change"?
> >>
> >> Good question, should we even allow two ports to have the same MAC
> >> address or should we complain and refuse to add it? If so that should
> >> mean we should also have to monitor any manual address changes or
> >> events for address changes on the ports.
> >
> > This was recently discussed by Stephen and me.
> > I'm thinking it should be allowed.
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=139182743919257&w=2
> 
> Great now that that's sorted out though I still think calling
> br_stp_change_bridge_id() is right just as calling the update features
> as the device is different. It could however be confusing when this
> situation is run and folks might report odd bugs unless we could tell
> them apart clearly. Thoughts?

br_stp_change_bridge_id() is currently called only if bridge_id.addr
should be changed.
If the addr should not be changed but some updates are needed,
br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() doesn't seem to fit into it.

Toshiaki Makita

--
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/