netdev - Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring

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: <AANLkTimkVqHaU=Ye96xK4Zs7XyzcL3Xgh5ouz5m2KXur@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:42:54 +0100
From:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>,
	Leonardo Borda <leonardo.borda@...onical.com>,
	Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr>,
	Bridge <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using
 arp monitoring

2011/3/26 Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>:
> Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>>Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
>>>Thank you for answering my question.
>>>Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>>>
>>>eth0----+               +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines
>>>           |             |
>>>           +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>>>           |             |
>>>eth1----+               +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines
>>
>>Hi Leonardo,
>>
>>I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port
>>for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same
>>time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because
>>of the new rx_handler usage.
>
> This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited.
>
> Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where should
> the packet go?
>
> I suggest to consider topology change.

It should be possible to have bridge for untagged (or 802.1p only)
packets independent of 802.1q tagged packets. I wonder if tag 0
devices should be expanded to have a flag that will enable handling
untagged packets by it.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
--
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