netdev - Re: [RFC] bridge: add netfilter hook for forwarding 802.1D group addresses

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, 19 Aug 2011 15:24:15 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	"Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <benve@...co.com>
Cc:	"David Lamparter" <equinox@...c24.net>,
	"Nick Carter" <ncarter100@...il.com>,
	"Ed Swierk" <eswierk@...switch.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<bridge@...ux-foundation.org>, <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bridge: add netfilter hook for forwarding 802.1D group
 addresses

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:18:04 -0500
"Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <benve@...co.com> wrote:

> The patch description and the code are clearly saying that STP is
> an exception, but I am just worried about the users.
> Maybe a proper description in the iptables help is sufficient.
> 
> Users may otherwise try to use this new hook for STP too
> (for example to generate logs or produce statistics/counters
> or divert STP traffic to userspace, etc).

STP traffic already goes to userspace. And gets processed
by the LOCAL_IN chain. So I don't think it is needed.


> Out of curiosity, ... if this gets accepted, shouldn't you provide
> NF_BR_LINK_LOCAL_OUT too?
> Or maybe you should call it NF_BR_LINK_LOCAL_FWD instead of
> NF_BR_LINK_LOCAL_IN?

Thanks, that is a better name, I'll change it in next version.
--
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