netdev - Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF

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: <c674e681-9f7f-85c2-a578-a246d1ec9f45@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:04:26 -0400
From:   Chas Williams <3chas3@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jan Blunck <jblunck@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports



On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@...radead.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@...radead.org wrote:
>>>> The code in net/ipv6/addrconf.c:addrconf_notify() tests for IFF_SLAVE to
>>>> decide if it should start the address configuration. Since team ports
>>>> shouldn't get link-local addresses assigned lets set IFF_SLAVE when linking
>>>> a port to the team master.
>>>
>>> I don't want to use IFF_SLAVE in team. Other master-slave devices are
>>> not using that as well, for example bridge, ovs, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe they need to get fixed too. I've used that flag because it is
>> documented as
>> a "slave of a load balancer" which describes what a team port is.
>>
>>
>>> I think that this should be fixed in addrconf_notify. It should lookup
>>> if there is a master on top and bail out in that case.
>>
>> There are other virtual interfaces that have a master assigned and want to
>> participate in IPv6 address configuration.
> 
> Can you give me an example?

I would like to revisit this patch (yes, I know it has been a while).  I 
believe the VRF implementation uses master to group the interfaces under
a single interface.

I don't see a reason not to use IFF_SLAVE since team and bonding are 
fairly similar.

>>
>> Unless we want to have a cascade of conditionals testing the priv_flags in
>> addrconf_notify() this is asking for a new net_device_flags flag.
>> Maybe something
>> generic like IFF_L2PORT ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jan
>>
>> [ Jiri, sorry for getting that mail twice ]
> 
> 
>