netdev - Re: [PATCH v4,net-next] vlan: implement vlan id and protocol changes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 7 Jul 2018 19:23:16 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 3chas3@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4,net-next] vlan: implement vlan id and protocol changes

On 7/7/18 7:14 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 08:11:16PM +0900, David Miller wrote:
>> Chas, it seems to me that you add the new notifier by not even one
>> driver is listening for the event.
>>
>> Either it is necessary, and you should show at least one example
>> use case, or it not necessary and therefore should not be added.
> 
> Chas, I'll take a look and send you a patch for mlxsw that you can fold
> into your v5.
> 
> In the future, please Cc those who commented on earlier versions of your
> patch.

What about the impacts to vlan devices enslaved to bridges?

What about neighbor entries? Shouldn't entries associated with prior
device (vlan id) be removed?

I think in the end the idea of changing a vid or protocol for vlan
device is the wrong thing to allow. I don't buy your response last time
of "That's a lot of churn (netlink mesages, kernel calls) for something
relatively simple." It's not a simple change.