netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work properly in bridge -try4

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, 27 Mar 2009 10:47:32 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	fubar@...ibm.com, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	mschmidt@...hat.com, dada1@...mosbay.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work
	properly in bridge -try4

Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 09:55:39AM CET, kaber@...sh.net wrote:
> Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:53:13AM CET, kaber@...sh.net wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Me neither, but I don't think this approach can be done without the
>>> > hook. While I still find it questionable whether this mode really
>>> > needs to be supported for a bridge at all
>>
>> Well there is I think nothing unusual in this net scheme. And by for example
>> the increasing setups with kvm/bridging it will be needed more and more.
>
> Mangling ARP packets for load-balancing purposes seems quite unusual.

Well, there are many unusual things, that do not imply that they should not be
supported...

>>> , an alternative approach
>>> would be to have bonding add FDB entries for all secondary MACs to
>>> make bridging treat them as local.
>>
>> Yes - that is the clear way. But there's not really straihtforward way to do
>> this. The clear approach would be to extend struct net_device for list of these
>> mac addresses and let the drivers (binding) fill it and bridge to process it.
>> But I don't know.
>
> We have a list of secondary unicast addresses, but that might not
> be suitable in this case since the addresses are (mostly) intended
> not to be visible to the stack if I understood correctly.

I agree this list is not suitable for this - it's used for different purpose and
I think it would be not wise to mix it with what we want...
--
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