netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] IGMP snooping for local traffic

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: <20171109193011.GJ13277@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 20:30:11 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] IGMP snooping for local traffic

> This means that switchdev drivers won't ever have to treat a HOST_MDB
> notification any differently than a PORT_MDB notification

No, they need to treat it very differently. 

A PORT_MDB says that frames for a group should be sent out that port.
So it probably needs to iterate all the ports in the bridge and add a
match/action to each port saying frames coming in for that group
should be sent out the port listed in the PORT_MDB.

A HOST_MDB say that frames for a group coming in from the port listed
in the HOST_MDB must be sent to the host. The match/action applies
directly to the port, other ports are not involved.

	 Andrew