netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 09/14] net: bridge: Propagate MC addresses with VID through switchdev

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: <20190121084111.GA10994@splinter>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:41:12 +0000
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "vivien.didelot@...il.com" <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        "ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org" <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
        "roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/14] net: bridge: Propagate MC addresses with
 VID through switchdev

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 07:22:21PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Maybe let's be more pragmatic in the approach to support those use cases
> and do the following with respect to this particular b53 switch HW: it
> is only permissible to have a bridge with multicast snooping disabled
> under the following conditions: all other ports are a member of that
> bridge or another bridge that has the same multicast snooping setting
> (turned on). If there is at least one standalone port, or another bridge
> requires multicast snooping on, then turning off multicast snooping in
> any bridge device is not possible.
> 
> Does that sound acceptable?

Yes.

> Let's continue discussing the VLAN changes since those could be
> beneficial for cpsw as well.

OK. Will reply there.