netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] bridge: allow forwarding some link local frames

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: <20111005135059.4fbb2912@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date:	Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:50:59 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bridge: allow forwarding some link local frames

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:40:19 +0100
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 21:14 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > plain text document attachment (bridge-multicast-filter.patch)
> > This is based on an earlier patch by Nick Carter with comments
> > by David Lamparter but with some refinements. Thanks for their patience
> > this is a confusing area with overlap of standards, user requirements,
> > and compatibility with earlier releases.
> > 
> > It adds a new sysfs attribute 
> >    /sys/class/net/brX/bridge/group_fwd_mask
> > that controls forwarding of frames with address of: 01-80-C2-00-00-0X
> > The default setting has no forwarding to retain compatibility.
> > 
> > One change from earlier releases is that forwarding of group
> > addresses is not dependent on STP being enabled or disabled. This
> > choice was made based on interpretation of tie 802.1 standards.
> > I expect complaints will arise because of this, but better to follow
> > the standard than continue acting incorrectly by default.
> > 
> > The filtering mask is writeable, but only values that don't forward
> > known control frames are allowed. It intentionally blocks attempts
> > to filter control protocols. For example: writing a 8 allows
> > forwarding 802.1X PAE addresses which is the most common request.
> [...]
> 
> I wonder why you don't forbid forwarding frames sent to reserved
> destination addresses?  The standards seem pretty clear that this should
> not be allowed.

Future proofing. Since addresses are unassigned there is no certainty of the
assigned semantics when they are used.


--
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