netdev - Re: [RFC] bridge: MAC learning uevents

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: <20160908083920.0d421951@xeon-e3>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:39:20 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     "D. Herrendoerfer" <d.herrendoerfer@...rendoerfer.name>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bridge: MAC learning uevents

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:06:16 +0200
"D. Herrendoerfer" <d.herrendoerfer@...rendoerfer.name> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'd like to start a discussion if it makes sense to add an optional feature
> 
> to the bridge MAC address learning code to generate kernel uevents for
> 
> every learned (added) and removed MAC address.
> 
> The (my) rationale behind this is, that I work with multiport SRIOV and 
> MRIOV
> 
> network cards that cannot put each and every virtual port into promiscuous
> 
> mode, but they have the capability to register a large number of MAC 
> addresses
> 
> to each interface.
> 
> These systems are host to a large number of kvm guests, that require 
> network access.
> 
> To get around the problem I added two uevents to linuxbridge that would 
> announce every
> 
> learned address to udev, and udev would register or remove  the MAC 
> address to the
> 
> uplink device of the bridge.
> 
> The script may also add the required addresses for multicast and IPv6 if 
> required.
> 
> The need for promiscuous mode on the card was gone. All I needed to do 
> was to attach
> 
> the guests through a linuxbridge instead of directly to the card.
> 
> 
> I may be missing something here - I'm pretty sure there I am, but is 
> there any conceptual
> 
> reason why this should not be done this way ?
> 
> 
> I'm porting my patch (for 3.10.0) to head, and will make it available, I 
> just want some
> 
> valuable feedback as early as possible.
> 
> 
> Thanks, D.Herrendoerfer

This should be possible by listening for netlink events.
No need for udev interaction.