netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under bond

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:	Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:22:02 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Cc:	Hans Schillström <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
	Maxime Bizon <mbizon@...ebox.fr>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"fubar@...ibm.com" <fubar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under bond

2011/10/13 John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>:
> On 10/13/2011 8:59 AM, Hans Schillström wrote:
>> Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:04:34PM CEST, mbizon@...ebox.fr wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 00:37 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, I must look at this again tomorrow but I have strong feeling this
>>>>> will break some some scenario including vlan-bridge-macvlan.
>>>>
>>>> unless I'm mistaken, today's behaviour:
>>>>
>>>> # vconfig add eth0 100
>>>> # brctl addbr br0
>>>> # brctl addif br0 eth0
>>>>
>>>> => eth0.100 gets no more packets, br0.100 is to be used
>>>>
>>>> after the patch won't we get the opposite ?
>>>
>>> Looks like it. The question is what is the correct behaviour...
>>
>> I think this it become correct now, you should not destroy lover level if possible.
>> I.e. as John wrote "it's not an unexpected behaviour"
>>
>> Consider adding a bridge to a vlan like this
>>
>> vconfig add eth0 100
>> brctl addbr br1
>> brctl addif br1 eth0.100
>>
>> If you later add a bridge (or bond) should the previous added bridge still work ?
>> Yes I think so, for me it's the expected behaviour.
>>
>> brctl addbr br0
>> brctl addif br0 eth0
>>
>> Regards
>> Hans
>>
>>
>
> Sorry I'm not entirely sure I followed the above two posts. Note
> this patch restores behavior that has existed for most of the
> 2.6.x kernels. In the 3.x kernels VLAN100 is dropped in the
> schematic below (assuming eth0 is active), I think this is
> incorrect.

Actually, for most of 2.6.x the behavior was somewhat
non-deterministic since it depended on kernel version and the NIC.  As
a result, I think we can safely say that this wasn't a particularly
firm interface that we have to be wedded to.  Based on overwhelming
feedback, I think the interface in this patch is the preferred one and
what we should stabilize on.
--
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