netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast: disable port when in blocking state

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: <20150622235215.GA14897@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:52:15 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, sashok@...ulusnetworks.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast: disable port when in
 blocking state

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:38:36PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> 
> One more thing - I don’t think we need any additional changes because there’s a check in
> br_multicast_port_query_expired():
>       if (port->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED ||
>             port->state == BR_STATE_BLOCKING)
>                 goto out;
> 
> So it looks like the port should be fine (i.e. not sending) when it goes in blocking state.

Thanks for looking into this! Perhaps we could at least add a
comment to state that the disable_port isn't needed because the
timers will expire and kill themselves automatically?  I think
adding it to the place where you were going to place the disable_port
call would be the most obvious.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in