netdev - Re: [PATCH] bridge: push blocking slaves to forwarding when turning stp off

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:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:17 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Vitalii Demianets <vitas@...factor.kiev.ua>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@...ire.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: push blocking slaves to forwarding when turning
 stp off

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:59:11 +0200
Vitalii Demianets <vitas@...factor.kiev.ua> wrote:

> Hello, Stephen!
> I can not understand your silence.
> There are issues fixed by the patch in question. For example, if the interface 
> is left in blocking state after stp was turned off, that state is not 
> stable - it can flip to forwarding state in unpredictable times, e.g. when 
> _any other_ slave of the bridge goes up or down. Do you think user wants 
> exactly that unpredictable state change?
> Also, the code in question in function br_stp_stop(), namely 
> br_port_state_selection(br) call, does exactly nothing except wasting cpu 
> cycles. Isn't it worth fixing?
> 

I had to go do real work last week.
Let me test and look at it more detail.
There is no urgency, the problem has existed for many years.
--
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