[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877f1edwxp.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 11:08:50 -0400
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"moderated list\:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: bridge: break if __br_mdb_del fails
Hi Nikolay,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:
>> err = __br_mdb_del(br, entry);
>> - if (!err)
>> - __br_mdb_notify(dev, p, entry, RTM_DELMDB);
>> + if (err)
>> + break;
>> + __br_mdb_notify(dev, p, entry, RTM_DELMDB);
>> }
>> } else {
>> err = __br_mdb_del(br, entry);
>>
>
> This can potentially break user-space scripts that rely on the best-effort
> behaviour, this is the normal "delete without vid & enabled vlan filtering".
> You can check the fdb delete code which does the same, this was intentional.
>
> You can add an mdb entry without a vid to all vlans, add a vlan and then try
> to remove it from all vlans where it is present - with this patch obviously
> that will fail at the new vlan.
OK good to know. That intention wasn't obvious. I can make __br_mdb_del
return void instead? What about the rest of the patchset if I do so?
Thanks,
Vivien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists