netdev - Re: [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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 23 Dec 2018 14:16:57 +0100
From:   Vincent Bernat <vincent@...nat.ch>
To:     Michal Soltys <soltys@....info>
Cc:     Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>,
        Chonggang Li <chonggangli@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [next] bonding: pass link-local packets to bonding master also.

 ❦ 23 décembre 2018 14:06 +01, Michal Soltys <soltys@....info>:

>>> Basing on what you wrote below, it seems that everything was already
>>> possible before the Chonggang Li's commit ?
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly:
>>>
>>> - if listening on master, you could get both slave interface
>>> (PACKET_ORIGDEV) as well as bonding master
>>> - if listening on slave, you would just get the slave interface
>>>
>>> Right ?
>> 
>> Yes. This has been this way since 2.6.27.
>
> In the earlier thread, the author of the original patch
> said that:
>
>> The exact problem that was fixed is, when a LLDP/CDP packet is
>> received, we want to know which exact interface did it come from,
>> instead of the bonding master.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chonggang
>
> But if PACKET_ORIGDEV provided it (and this functionally is now broken,
> so counts as another regression - earlier bridging issues aside), maybe
> it should be just reverted ?

I think this would be better. Once fixed, I can push a change for
packet(7) to document this option as it is currently not present.
-- 
The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first.
		-- Blaise Pascal