netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: do not pass link-local packets to master-interface

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: <CAHo-OoxPWyYJ+Zn37S9+uQHiDksnE8KZNsCkHSPND4A8uqWU4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:26:36 +0200
From:   Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     Chonggang Li <chonggangli@...gle.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: do not pass link-local packets to master-interface

>         In what case is the current behavior a problem (my guess would
> be something related to LLDP)?

LLDP is indeed the case we're trying to solve here.
Listen on one socket and get LLDP for all interfaces in the system.

>  What if, e.g., the bond is a bridge
> port, will STP frames no longer propagate to the bridge?

That's an interesting question.
I don't actually know how this should work.

Should this change perhaps only apply to packets we would otherwise
RX_HANDLER_EXACT?

ie. only affect link local packets on inactive slaves?
but continue reparenting link local packets on active slaves?

That would seem a little inconsistent... but less of a change.