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]
Date:   Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:05:53 +0000
From:   Ido Schimmel <>
To:     Florian Fainelli <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/14] net: bridge: Propagate MC addresses with
 VID through switchdev

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:00:57PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> In order for bridge port members to get a chance to implement unicast
> and multicast address filtering correctly, which would matter for e.g:
> switch network devices, synchronize the UC and MC lists down to the
> individual bridge port members using switchdev HOST_MDB objects such
> that this does not impact drivers that already have a ndo_set_rx_mode()
> operation which likely already operate in promiscuous mode.
> When the bridge has multicast snooping enabled, proper HOST_MDB
> notifications will be sent through br_mdb_notify() already.

I don't understand the change. HOST_MDB is used to notify underlying
drivers about MDB entries that should be configured to locally receive
packets. This is triggered by the transmission of an IGMP report through
the bridge, for example.

It seems that you're trying to overload HOST_MDB with multicast address
filtering on bridge ports? Why are you performing this filtering?
Shouldn't you allow all MAC addresses to ingress?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists