netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: bridge: Notify about !added_by

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 02 May 2018 01:33:29 +0300
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, ivecera@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        jiri@...nulli.us,
        "bridge\@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: bridge: Notify about !added_by_user FDB entries

Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:

> On 01/05/18 20:04, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity on
>> non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except
>> for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to
>> avoid sending duplicate notifications.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
>> ---
>>   net/bridge/br.c           |  4 ++--
>>   net/bridge/br_fdb.c       | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>   net/bridge/br_private.h   |  4 ++--
>>   net/bridge/br_switchdev.c |  2 +-
>>   4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Hi Petr,
> We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan of
> adding yet another one for such trivial change.
> Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing
> fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below)
> IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete() or __fdb_delete(true)
> vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply having the last
> parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and avoids another
> fdb delete function.

All right--this is how I had it written actually, but then decided to do
this wrapping, because so many of the calls end up being true. I'll send
a v2 with just the extra argument.

> Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context because
> you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones. I'd suggest
> changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify, otherwise you
> could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify == false which
> to me means don't notify. :-)

OK, swdev_notify it will be.

> Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list.

bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org? I saw it's a moderated list and for
some reason that made me think it's not meant for patch postings. I'll
add them the next time.

Thanks,
Petr