netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v12 1/5] net: Introduce generic failover module

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: <20180525153843.503ee052@xeon-e3>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 15:38:43 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, aaron.f.brown@...el.com,
        anjali.singhai@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v12 1/5] net: Introduce generic failover module

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> wrote:

> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops {
>   *	entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth)
>   * @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device
>   * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook
> + * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device
> + * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device
>   */
>  enum netdev_priv_flags {
>  	IFF_802_1Q_VLAN			= 1<<0,
> @@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
>  	IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM		= 1<<24,
>  	IFF_MACSEC			= 1<<25,
>  	IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER		= 1<<26,
> +	IFF_FAILOVER			= 1<<27,
> +	IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE		= 1<<28,
>  };

Why is FAILOVER any different than other master/slave relationships.
I don't think you need to take up precious netdev flag bits for this.