netdev - Re: [patch net-next] switchdev: call bridge setlink/dellink ndos recursively

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:37:27 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, sfeldma@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] switchdev: call bridge setlink/dellink ndos
 recursively

Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 06:07:02PM CET, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 3/16/15, 9:36 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:21:03PM CET, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>>>On 3/16/15, 7:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>There has been a discussion about if it's better to let masters to
>>>>propagate call down themself or if its better just blindly go down and
>>>>try to call ndo on every lower netdev. Turned out that more people (me
>>>>not included) like the second option better.
>>>>
>>>>This patch changes bridge setlink/dellink in that direction.
>>>>Sorry Roopa for forcing you to do it the way I liked initially.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>>no worries. thanks for submitting the patch Jiri.
>>>
>>>One thing though (Which i also mentioned in one of the threads on this),
>>>the below command will not work with layered devices with the below patch.
>>>Because 'self' commands will directly try to find the switch port driver from
>>>rtnetlink.c and they dont use the switch dev api.
>>>
>>>bridge link set dev bond0 learning off self
>>>
>>>
>>>The code that currently exists in the tree with bond and team supporting the
>>>op
>>>will actually work.
>>Hmm, interesting.
>>
>>DaveM, this might be a good argument for call propagation. What do you
>>think?
>>
>For the stp api, it is not...because stp is run in the bridge driver and
>always involves the switchdev api.
>
>lets hold on to in-tree getlink/setlink before we find a better way.

Okay. Makes sense.

>
>my 2c
--
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