netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] net: rtnetlink: Enslave device before bringing it up

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: <20190531.142615.403782868688096350.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     phil@....cc
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: rtnetlink: Enslave device before
 bringing it up

From: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:51:20 +0200

> Unlike with bridges, one can't add an interface to a bond and set it up
> at the same time:
> 
> | # ip link set dummy0 down
> | # ip link set dummy0 master bond0 up
> | Error: Device can not be enslaved while up.
> 
> Of all drivers with ndo_add_slave callback, bond and team decline if
> IFF_UP flag is set, vrf cycles the interface (i.e., sets it down and
> immediately up again) and the others just don't care.
> 
> Support the common notion of setting the interface up after enslaving it
> by sorting the operations accordingly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>

What about other flags like IFF_PROMISCUITY?