netdev - Re: [Bridge] [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]

Date:	Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:56:49 +1300
From:	Joel Wirāmu Pauling <joel@...ertia.net>
To:	vyasevic@...hat.com
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" <sysoleg@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next 0/4] Allow bridge to function in
 non-promisc mode

I agree that this is a useful behavior, often we will use a bridge in
the same scenario (multiple virtio tap adapters belonging to VM's)
another scenario is when creating a bridge for chaining multiple VPN's
together.

-Joel

On 14 March 2013 06:04, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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