netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bridge: a netlink notification should be sent when those attributes are changed by br_sysfs

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: <CADvbK_eZUKV21x241heK45D9j62Fg7fZqd5rgG-S_LPed2WGjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:45:12 +0800
From:	Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bridge: a netlink notification should be
 sent when those attributes are changed by br_sysfs_if

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
<nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 02:34 PM, Xin Long wrote:
>> Now when we change the attributes of bridge or br_port by netlink,
>> a relevant netlink notification will be sent, but if we change them
>> by ioctl or sysfs, no notification will be sent.
>>
>> We should ensure that whenever those attributes change internally or from
>> sysfs/ioctl, that a netlink notification is sent out to listeners.
>>
>> Also, NetworkManager will use this in the future to listen for out-of-band
>> bridge master attribute updates and incorporate them into the runtime
>> configuration.
>>
>> This patch is used for br_sysfs_if, and we also move br_ifinfo_notify out
>> of store_flag.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c | 5 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Generally looks good, but it creates an inconsistency between bridge fdb_flush
> and port fdb_flush since the latter will generate a notification while the
> bridge flush will not.
>
yeah, because port fdb_flush is called by brport_store(), in the
common function.
do you think it''s redundant if we add a notification in bridge
fdb_flush to keep
consistence with port fdb_flush?