netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bonding: only rely on arp packets if arp monitor is used

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:07:56 +0100
From:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bonding: only rely on arp packets if arp
 monitor is used

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 07:57:18AM +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
...snip...
>What do you think about this*? It's on top of this series, extends
>arp_validate to (not) filter out ARPs on not-validated slaves and permits
>it to be used in non-AB mode (also, we don't need that bond->lock, we're
>always under RCU).

Hi Jay,

In the meanwhile I've integrated this approach (adding new arp_validate
options) and sent v2.

The new version, when used with arp_validate=0/1/2/3 (old values) behaves
exactly the same, while adding 3 new options - only unvalidated ARPs,
validated ARPs on active and unvalidated ARPs on slave and vice versa
(there's no analogue for ALL_ARP cause it doesn't make much sense - as the
validated ARPs for both slaves are already ARPs :) ).

Hope that helps, and sorry that I didn't do my homework in the first time.

Thank you!
--
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