netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: bridge: add max_fdb

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:54:05 -0800
From:   Sarah Newman <srn@...mr.com>
To:     Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bridge: add max_fdb_count

On 11/15/2017 08:05 PM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On 2017/11/16 11:25, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> Also what do the vendors using bridge for L2 offload to switch think?
>>
>> The Marvell L2 switches which DSA supports have 8K FDB/MDB entries. So
>> maybe 1024 is a bit low?
> 
> How about U32_MAX by default since it is currently not restricted.
> (assuming the field will be changed to u32 as per Stephen's feedback).
> 
> Otherwise users may suffer from unexpected behavior change by updating
> kernel?
> 

U32_MAX seems like much too high a default to be helpful to a typical user. How many devices are realistically on a single bridge in the wild? Double
that seems like a reasonable default.

Additionally, since the exact limit seems controversial, it can be made a configuration parameter.

What about the rest?

--Sarah