netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] netdevice: order of synchronization of IFF_PROMISC and IFF

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: <485634D1.2010603@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:39:29 +0800
From:	Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	NETDEV <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] netdevice: order of synchronization of IFF_PROMISC
 and IFF_ALLMULTI

Patrick McHardy said the following on 2008-6-16 17:27:
> Wang Chen wrote:
>> IFF_PROMISC should be set before IFF_ALLMULTI.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  net/8021q/vlan_dev.c |   25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c b/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
>> index 5d055c2..14742e3 100644
>> --- a/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
>> +++ b/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
>> @@ -547,10 +547,14 @@ static int vlan_dev_open(struct net_device *dev)
>>      }
>>      memcpy(vlan->real_dev_addr, real_dev->dev_addr, ETH_ALEN);
>>  
>> -    if (dev->flags & IFF_ALLMULTI)
>> -        dev_set_allmulti(real_dev, 1);
>> +    /* NOTE: order of synchronization of IFF_PROMISC and IFF_ALLMULTI
>> +       is important. Some (broken) drivers set IFF_PROMISC, when
>> +       IFF_ALLMULTI is requested not asking us and not reporting.
>> +     */
>>      if (dev->flags & IFF_PROMISC)
>>          dev_set_promiscuity(real_dev, 1);
>> +    if (dev->flags & IFF_ALLMULTI)
>> +        dev_set_allmulti(real_dev, 1);
> 
> 
> What exactly is the problem here? The VLAN code is obviously not
> one of the broken drivers, so why should it care what other drivers
> do?
> 

I think the problem is that allmulti is not valid if promis is not on.

And about the comment, I copy it from dev_change_flags() and think
it seems suit for here.
Did I misunderstand this comment?

--
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