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: <1067aa67-1a49-643f-85d2-e3d8a34a6db1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:38:26 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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

On 11/09/2017 11:30 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> 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. 

Allow me to rephrase, switchdev drivers will ignore HOST_MDB
notifications because that does not resolve to something they can do
something about.

> 
> 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.

Fine, then add a boolean to the PORT_MDB notification that says ingress
or egress and voila, or am I missing something?
-- 
Florian