netdev - Re: [PATCH next] bonding: pass link-local packets to bonding master also.

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: <281b302f-d670-a6fb-f34b-0c3df9e7dec6@ziu.info>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:17:10 +0200
From:   Michal Soltys <soltys@....info>
To:     Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>,
        Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] bonding: pass link-local packets to bonding master
 also.

On 2018-07-17 11:32, Michal Soltys wrote:
> On 07/17/2018 01:53 AM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Jay Vosburgh
>> <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> wrote:
>>> Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Commit b89f04c61efe ("bonding: deliver link-local packets with
>>>> skb->dev set to link that packets arrived on") changed the behavior
>>>> of how link-local-multicast packets are processed. The change in
>>>> the behavior broke some legacy use cases where these packets are
>>>> expected to arrive on bonding master device also.
>>>>
>>>> This patch passes the packet to the stack with the link it arrived
>>>> on as well as passes to the bonding-master device to preserve the
>>>> legacy use case.
>>>
>>>          Michal, can you test this?  I'm travelling this week and won't
>>> be able to run the patch.
> 
> 
> Yes, will test today and report.
> 

The patch looks to be working fine - tested both passive bridge
(stp_state == 0) and with in-kernel implementation active (stp_state ==
1). No loops, no issues so far.