netdev - Re: [RFC v2 1/4] bridge: enable interfaces to opt out from becoming the root bridge

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: <1392577012.15615.116.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:56:52 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/4] bridge: enable interfaces to opt out from becoming
 the root bridge

On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 18:59 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
> 
> It doesn't make sense for some interfaces to become a root bridge

I think you mean 'root port'.

> at any point in time. One example is virtual backend interfaces
> which rely on other entities on the bridge for actual physical
> connectivity. They only provide virtual access.
> 
> Device drivers that know they should never become part of the
> root bridge have been using a trick of setting their MAC address
> to a high broadcast MAC address such as FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF. Instead
> of using these hacks lets the interfaces annotate its intent and
> generalizes a solution for multiple drivers, while letting the
> drivers use a random MAC address or one prefixed with a proper OUI.
> This sort of hack is used by both qemu and xen for their backend
> interfaces.
> 
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
> Cc: bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com>
> ---
>  include/uapi/linux/if.h | 1 +
>  net/bridge/br_if.c      | 2 ++
>  net/bridge/br_private.h | 1 +
>  net/bridge/br_stp_if.c  | 2 ++
>  4 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if.h b/include/uapi/linux/if.h
> index d758163..8d10382 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/if.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/if.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@
>  #define IFF_LIVE_ADDR_CHANGE 0x100000	/* device supports hardware address
>  					 * change when it's running */
>  #define IFF_MACVLAN 0x200000		/* Macvlan device */
> +#define IFF_BRIDGE_NON_ROOT 0x400000    /* Don't consider for root bridge */
[...]

Does it really make sense to add a flag that says exactly which special
behaviour you want, or would it be better to define the flag as a
passive property, which other drivers/protocols then use as a condition
for special behaviour?

The fact that you also define the IFF_BRIDGE_SKIP_IP flag, and set it on
exactly the same devices, makes me think that they should actually be a
single flag.  I don't know how that flag should be named or described,
though.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)