netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: add igmpv3 and mldv2 query support

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: <a5fe27de-e747-c1c6-7108-83124d1c000f@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:31:00 +0100
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        linus.luessing@...3.blue, roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: add igmpv3 and mldv2 query support

On 18/11/16 11:09, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 18/11/16 11:04, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> (+CC Roopa)
>> Hi Hangbin,
>> This patch is not correct, you should not use the net device IGMP config in the bridge.
> * bridge net device, sorry not port
>
>> These packets may never make it to the host and they may not be reflected, even more the
>> host may have very different igmp config for the port net device than the bridge does.
> * again bridge net device, not port
>
>> Also your current implementation switches to V3 only if it is globally set, and that should
>> be controlled on a per-bridge basis, even per-vlan later.
> * it is per-bridge, you use the global net device IGMP config, but it should be in the bridge
> mcast control options, so we can do it per-vlan later and also be able to do the compat parts
> of the RFC and in general, the bridge is configured via its own options not the host net device
> because as I said these packets may never be received locally

Having the host netdev options affect the bridge-specific config is really undesirable and confusing.

>
>> One more thing, if someone does a V2 leave for a group, you can end up sending them V3
>> group-specific query.
>>
>> I have been working on an implementation for IGMPv3/MLDv2 querier for the bridge device, it re-uses
>> most of the current code and allows you to configure it per-bridge (and later per-vlan). The only
>> reason I've not yet sent it to upstream is that we (at Cumulus) are working out the compatibility
>> parts (e.g. RFC3376 sec 7, sec 8) of the RFC since it has some unclear cases.

Err, RFC3376 sec 7.3.1, 7.3.2, and RFC3810 sec 8.3.1, 8.3.2

I really should get coffee.. sorry for the multiple emails :-)

>> But I can rip the compatibility out and send it early for review if you'd like, we can add the
>> compat code later.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Nik
>>