netdev - Re: RFC: bridge get fdb by bridge device

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: <52FCBFAD.6000408@mojatatu.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:50:53 -0500
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
CC:	vyasevic@...hat.com,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: bridge get fdb by bridge device

On 02/12/14 13:50, John Fastabend wrote:

>
> Just to wrap things up in one email. Changing between VEB and VEPA
> modes already triggers an event. So management applications can listen
> for this.
>


Ok - reasonable.

> And I can send out a patch to add a flag to hardware bridge devices
> I'll likely get to it next week sometime unless someone beats me
> to it.
>

You understand this better - so i will wait.
I'll send an updated version of the patch this weekend
now that net-next is open.

>
> Sure, IEEE802.1Q would call these edge relays.
>

Ok, so what older kids used to call "repeaters".
The more i think about it, the more it looks like this is
still a bridge and we have a bridgeport mode as VEPA vs VEB.
IOW, as you said - you can have a bridge with mix and match of
VEB/VEPA. We can easily add such a feature to the software bridge
as well. It sounds simple and useful enough.

>
> Because it is not the same type of object as the software bridge.
> Most notably it doesn't do learning. If anything its more like a
> macvlan device and we could just as easily tag it IFF_MACVLAN. So
> because it doesn't really match 1:1 with either of those object I
> would just presume give its own flag. Userspace can always create
> a small macro call it is_bridge_like() and check for any of the
> handful of bridge like objects.
>

I think VEB/VEP may be somehow covering the "port" aspect.
The challenge is what to call "eth0 when running in SRIOV"

>>>
>>> # ip link set dev bridge0 master bridge1
>>> RTNETLINK answers: Too many levels of symbolic links
>>>
>>
>> pourquoi?  If the original rationale was to limit the
>> broadcast domain scope it sounds strange that a bridge in
>> the form a macvlan is allowed.
>>
>
> Agreed. But there it is.
>

I am sure someone knows why - Stephen?

cheers,
jamal
--
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