netdev - Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: reinject arps into bonding slave instead of master

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: <20110310205237.GE2837@psychotron.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:52:37 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
Cc:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: reinject arps into bonding slave
	instead of master

Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:44:53PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>Le 10/03/2011 07:48, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>>>But for all others setups, where there exist some net_devices before
>>>the "untagging" one, you would face some troubles. For example, with
>>>eth0+eth1 ->  br0 ->  br0.100, you cannot untag before entering
>>>__netif_receive_skb. If you do so, the bridge would receive untagged
>>>frame and if the frame is not for the local host, the bridge would
>>>forward an untagged frame while it is expected to forward a tagged
>>>one. Even if the bridge is in a position to know the frame *was*
>>>tagged, we cannot expect the bridge to do special processing to
>>>handle this situation. Doing so would break layering.
>>
>>I disagree.
>>eth0 ->  untag on early __netif_receive_skb (sets up skb->vlan_tci)
>>            ->rx_handler of bridge
>>->br0 ->  tag is detected by vlan_tx_tag_present()
>>            ->  reinject to __netif_receive_skb with skb->dev == br0.100
>
>For local delivery, is should work.
>
>But if the bridge must forward the frame to another host (bridges are
>designed for such things :-)), it will have to insert the vlan header
>back into the frame. I don't understand how it could work
>automagically in this situation.

This works for hw_accel path. Would look the same.

>
>>This way the flow would be very similar to vlan-hw-accel, am I right?
>
>So your point is to remove any 802.1Q header in any ingres frame,
>whatever the local interface setup. Right?
>
>How would this support nested vlan headers?
>
>eth0 -> eth0.100 -> eth0.100.200 -> eth0.100.200.300.
>
>Who will choose eth0.100.200.300 as the last skb->dev?

Hate to think about this more, that's for sure.

>
>>I have following patch in mind. Note it's raw DRAFT.
>
>I need to take some time to review your patch.
>
>In the mean time, what is the status of the whole patch series? Can we expect an ACK from someone?

It was posponed by davem. I plan to solve vlans first, then repost the
whole series (so that bond recv_probe would see vlan arps)
>
>	Nicolas.
--
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