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  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]
Date:   Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:34:52 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     Chas Williams <3chas3@...il.com>,
        Jan Blunck <jblunck@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports

Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:38:05AM CEST, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14:14 +0200
>Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>
>> Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:04:26PM CEST, 3chas3@...il.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >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.  
>> 
>> Again, why do you need team port to have IFF_SLAVE flag? What do you
>> want to achieve
>
>Without setting this flag IPv6 will try and make a link specific address.

Why is it not an issue with bridge, ovs, and other master-slave devices?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists