netdev - Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130125200028.GD1821@minipsycho.orion>
Date:	Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:00:28 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Pavel Simerda <psimerda@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, andy@...yhouse.net,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, dcbw@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default
 instead of zeroes

Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:31:32PM CET, fubar@...ibm.com wrote:
>Pavel Simerda <psimerda@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@...ibm.com>
>>> but I don't think it should be changed.
>>
>>Just a short question. Is there any reason for bonding interfaces to
>>behave differently from bridging interfaces in this respect?
>
>	To clarify, what I don't think should change is that a manually
>set MAC on the bonding master should override the automatic copy of the
>first slave's MAC to the bonding master.  The fail_over_mac active and
>follow settings are an exception to this, but those are special cases
>for unusual network hardware.
>
>	As for the random MAC vs. zero MAC, I've always thought that the
>all zero MAC was a clear indicator that the device (the bonding master
>in this case) was not in a usable state (in the sense that it could not
>send or receive actual traffic).  It's not a really big deal, though, so
>if the trend these days is for everything to have a MAC all the time,
>that's fine, as long as doing so doesn't break anything.
>
>	I think the patch under discussion should be fine with the
>addition of the last notifier call previously discussed.  Some
>documentation updates would be nice, too.

Will do :)

>
>	-J
>
>---
>	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
>
>--
>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
--
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