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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:15:30 +0100 From: Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, Michael Braun <michael-dev@...i-braun.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > How does this compare and/or relate to the multicast-to-unicast feature > we were going to add to the wifi stack, particularly mac80211? Do we > perhaps not need that feature at all, if bridging will have it? > > I suppose that the feature there could apply also to locally generated > traffic when the AP interface isn't in a bridge, but I think I could > live with requiring the AP to be put into a bridge to achieve a similar > configuration? > > Additionally, on an unrelated note, this seems to apply generically to > all kinds of frames, losing information by replacing the address. > Shouldn't it have similar limitations as the wifi stack feature has > then, like only applying to ARP, IPv4, IPv6 and not general protocols? (should all three be answered with Michael's and my reply to Michael's mail, I think) > > Also, it should probably come with the same caveat as we documented for > the wifi feature: > > Note that this may break certain expectations of the receiver, > such as the ability to drop unicast IP packets received within > multicast L2 frames, or the ability to not send ICMP destination > unreachable messages for packets received in L2 multicast (which > is required, but the receiver can't tell the difference if this > new option is enabled.) Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211 multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet header?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists