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: <20171109202156.GL13277@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 21:21:56 +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

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:38:26AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 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.

Hi Florian

Yes, they can. In fact, if they want to support IGMP snooping on the
bridge interface, they have to. How else do they know to forward
traffic to the host?

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

But since the semantics are so different, why not just have a
different messages?

	  Andrew