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  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:	Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:09:20 -0800
From:	"Samudrala, Sridhar" <>
To:	roopa <>,
	Scott Feldman <>
CC:	"" <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <>,
	Jiří Pírko <>,
	"Arad, Ronen" <>, Thomas Graf <>,
	john fastabend <>,
	"" <>,
	Netdev <>,
	Wilson Kok <>,
	Andy Gospodarek <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] bridge: ability to disable forwarding on
 a port

On 1/19/2015 10:20 PM, roopa wrote:
> On 1/18/15, 11:37 PM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> <snip..>
>> Not sure. I don't know the use case, but I think I might have heard that
>> there could be a case
>>   where a switch port could be bridged with a vm's port running on the
>> switch. (?)
>>> Ignoring the above usecase for a bit. And thinking through this 
>>> again, It
>>> appears that this check should
>>> be only on the ingress port, no ?
>>> If the ingress bridge port is an offloaded port, don't flood or forward
>>> because hardware has already done it.
>>> And this is best done with the offload feature flag on the bridge port.
>> That's assuming hardware did the flood.  Maybe your other option to
>> mark the skb if already flooded by hw is best.  That's enough info for
>> the bridge driver to make a decision to flood or not to the other
>> ports, and it's an implementation decision for the driver/device to do
>> the flood offload, if desired, and mark the skb if it did.
> Still thinking we can just use the offload feature flag here. How 
> about  avoid forwarding only if both src and dst ports have
> forwarding offloaded/accelerated by a switch asic  ?. That should 
> cover all cases.
>> Btw, you're still saying flood or forward, but in my mind we're
>> talking about flood only: flood of unknown unicast or flood of
>> bcast/mcast pkts.  Forwarding would be for known-unicast pkts, which
>> should even involve the bridge driver since that forwarding is
>> offloaded to the device.
> I was also taking into account pkts copied to the CPU due to an acl 
> rule such as log.
> These unicast pkts can come to cpu even if it is already forwarded in hw.

Do you have a switch port netdev that corresponds to CPU port? Or are 
they seen on the bridge device?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists