netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] macvlan: Support interface operstate properly

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: <79B09DA9-65D1-405A-BF6F-A46E9FBEE74F@akamai.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 01:03:14 +0000
From:	"Banerjee, Debabrata" <dbanerje@...mai.com>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] macvlan: Support interface operstate properly

On 4/7/16, 7:05 AM, "Nikolay Aleksandrov" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:



>On 04/07/2016 12:36 AM, Debabrata Banerjee wrote:
>> Set appropriate macvlan interface status based on lower device and our
>> status. Can be up, down, or lowerlayerdown.
>What about dormant ?
>
>That being said I understand the need to switch to lowerlayerdown when the lower
>device is in "down", which is basically the most important change of this patch.
>The rest is already handled by link watch based on carrier state. By now people
>are used to having lowerlayerdown when there's no carrier, now it can also mean
>that the lower device has been brought admin down.
>
>Here's another interesting state:
>6: mac1@...2: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP,DORMANT,M-DOWN> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state LOWERLAYERDOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>Prior to this patch the macvlan would stay in dormant state and it will also propagate
>to devices stacked on top of it.

The no carrier issue gave me an idea. What if we just set no carrier on the macvlan device?
This seems appropriate, but it doesn't directly address the dormant issue, although that could
be a separate patch. Will this cause any new issues? It's very simple, new patch incoming.