netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/4] bridge: Fix problems around the PVID

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:	Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:06:53 +0900
From:	Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp, vyasevic@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] bridge: Fix problems around the PVID

On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:00 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:27:54 +0900
> 
> > There seem to be some undesirable behaviors related with PVID.
> > 1. It has no effect assigning PVID to a port. PVID cannot be applied
> > to any frame regardless of whether we set it or not.
> > 2. FDB entries learned via frames applied PVID are registered with
> > VID 0 rather than VID value of PVID.
> > 3. We can set 0 or 4095 as a PVID that are not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q.
> > This leads interoperational problems such as sending frames with VID
> > 4095, which is not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q, and treating frames with VID
> > 0 as they belong to VLAN 0, which is expected to be handled as they have
> > no VID according to IEEE 802.1Q.
> > 
> > Note: 2nd and 3rd problems are potential and not exposed unless 1st problem
> > is fixed, because we cannot activate PVID due to it.
> 
> Please work out the issues in patch #2 with Vlad and resubmit this
> series.
> 
> Thank you.

I'm hovering between whether we should fix the issue by changing vlan 0
interface behavior in 8021q module or enabling a bridge port to sending
priority-tagged frames, or another better way.

If you could comment it, I'd appreciate it :)


BTW, I think what is discussed in patch #2 is another problem about
handling priority-tags, and it exists without this patch set applied.
It looks like that we should prepare another patch set than this to fix
that problem.

Should I include patches that fix the priority-tags problem in this
patch set and resubmit them all together?


Thanks,

Toshiaki Makita

> 
> --
> 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