netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] bonding: use common mac addr checks

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: <5809.1526074156@famine>
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 14:29:16 -0700
From:   Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To:     "Banerjee, Debabrata" <dbanerje@...mai.com>
cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        "Andy Gospodarek" <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] bonding: use common mac addr checks

Banerjee, Debabrata <dbanerje@...mai.com> wrote:

>> From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosburgh@...onical.com]
>> Debabrata Banerjee <dbanerje@...mai.com> wrote:
>
>> >-				if
>> (!ether_addr_equal_64bits(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst,
>> >-							     mac_bcast) &&
>> >-
>> !is_zero_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) {
>> >+				if
>> (is_valid_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) {
>> 
>> 	This change and the similar ones below will now fail non-broadcast
>> multicast Ethernet addresses, where the prior code would not.  Is this an
>> intentional change?
>
>Yes I don't see how it makes sense to use multicast addresses at all, but I may be missing something. It's also illegal according to rfc1812 3.3.2, but obviously this balancing mode is trying to be very clever. We probably shouldn't violate the rfc anyway.

	Fair enough, but I think it would be good to call this out in
the change log just in case it does somehow cause a regression.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com