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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:20:43 +0000
From:	Viswanath Bandaru <>
To:	Jiri Pirko <>
CC:	Florian Fainelli <>,
	roopa <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] Add NTF_EXT_AGED to control FDB ageing
 in SW or HW

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Pirko []
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:20 PM
> To: Viswanath Bandaru
> Cc: Florian Fainelli; roopa;;;
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] Add NTF_EXT_AGED to control FDB
> ageing in SW or HW
> Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:29:38PM CET, wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >
> >> >I agree, in fact, most of the HW I have access to only has a global
> >> >age timer configuration knob. Is this configurable on a per-port
> >> >basis for higher end switches, or even maybe per-FDB entry?
> >>
> >> I'm currently not aware of any hw which does not have global age timer.
> >> But I believe that they will appear. The model that we have now, to
> >> propagate aging setting of bridge down is more general and should be ok.
> >>
> >> Drivers should probably take care of multi bridge setup with
> >> different aging setup. Maybe to find minimal time and print a warning?
> >>
> >
> >Setting up the minimal time in such a scenario is good.
> >
> >Should we also consider the possibility bridges containing ports from
> different  devices (and therefore different drivers) ? If that is a possibility, I
> think the bridge module should take responsibility of finding out the minimal
> time to pushing to all involved drivers.
> It is certainly possible to bridge ports from multiple switch devices.
> But that should not be a problem, because 1 bridge has 1 aging setup which
> will be passed to all port drivers.

I apologize for confusion, I actually meant multiple bridge devices (which was the context) each having ports from different switch devices.  Is this expected to  be expected in reality ?
> I believe that the only case which need to be resolved is multiple bridges
> over single switch device. And I believe that it should be handled in drivers
> because only drivers know what the hw is capable of (if it supports aging
> setup per port/bridge/global).
> >
> >
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