netdev - Re: [PATCH] arp_notify: unconditionally send gratuitous ARP for NETDEV_NOTIFY

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1300094799.30687.5.camel@seasc7941>
Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:26:39 +0100
From:	Anders Franzen <anders.franzen@...csson.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com" <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arp_notify: unconditionally send gratuitous ARP for
 NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS.

Nice, so this is a generic way of getting out gratuitous arps.
Can it be used by drivers (macvlan) on top of bonding.
Bonding is sending the BOND_FAILOVER event that could be mapped
to NOTIFY_PEERS in the higher level devices.

And bonding is implementing its own grat arps functions, maybe it could
be broken out to use the NOTIFY_PEERS instead.

And what about IPv6, would it be ok to implement an unsolicited NA on
the event?

I will happily implement the above, if anyone thinks it's worth it?

BR
 Anders


On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 19:51 +0100, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:13:45 +0000
> 
> > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 01:46 +0000, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:44:16 +0000
> >> 
> >> > NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEER is an explicit request by the driver to send a link
> >> > notification while NETDEV_UP/NETDEV_CHANGEADDR generate link
> >> > notifications as a sort of side effect.
>  ...
> > I nearly forgot -- the NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEER stuff was tagged for
> > stable/longterm backport (it appeared in 2.6.32.19 or so). I think this
> > change should likewise go back, what do you think?
> 
> Sure, I've queued it up for -stable.
> --
> 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


--
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