netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Allow bridge to function in non-promisc mode

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: <5140B1B3.2070205@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:04:51 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:	"Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" <sysoleg@...dex.ru>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4]  Allow bridge to function in non-promisc
 mode

On 03/13/2013 12:09 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:45:40 -0400
> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/13/2013 11:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:12:29 -0400
>>> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/13/2013 02:22 AM, "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.03.2013, 05:45, "Vlad Yasevich" <vyasevic@...hat.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The series adds an ability for the bridge to function in non-promiscuous mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the practical applications for such setup? In other words,
>>>>> in which cases I would want to put bridge into non-promiscuous
>>>>> mode and specify some uplink ports?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On of the applications would be when bridge is an edge device servicing
>>>> a VM deployment.  Each of the VMs knows the mac address that the guest
>>>> has and may program that mac onto the uplinks.
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't that environment just use macvlan?
>>> Is it because changing libvirt is harder than changing the kernel?
>>>
>>
>> No, because macvlan has a drawback that it doesn't easily let guests
>> talk to the host.  Bridge is still most commonly used for just that reason.
>>
>> -vlad
>
> Maybe fixing that with a flag to macvlan would be easier?
>

Not really.  macvlan to physical device could be made simple enough.
However, physical to macvlan is non-trivial at all.

We get around this right now by crating a macvlan on the host and
have macvlan to macvlan communication essentially turning it into
bridge.  But that doesn't work in all scenarios either.

-vlad
--
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