netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3 03/11] bonding: fix unexpected IFF

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: <20190916144930.GO2286@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:49:30 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
        vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, sd@...asysnail.net,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        manishc@...vell.com, rahulv@...vell.com, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        sashal@...nel.org, hare@...e.de, varun@...lsio.com,
        ubraun@...ux.ibm.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
        jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 03/11] bonding: fix unexpected IFF_BONDING bit
 unset

Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:47:54PM CEST, ap420073@...il.com wrote:
>The IFF_BONDING means bonding master or bonding slave device.
>->ndo_add_slave() sets IFF_BONDING flag and ->ndo_del_slave() unsets
>IFF_BONDING flag.
>
>bond0<--bond1
>
>Both bond0 and bond1 are bonding device and these should keep having
>IFF_BONDING flag until they are removed.
>But bond1 would lose IFF_BONDING at ->ndo_del_slave() because that routine
>do not check whether the slave device is the bonding type or not.
>This patch adds the interface type check routine before removing
>IFF_BONDING flag.
>
>Test commands:
>    ip link add bond0 type bond
>    ip link add bond1 type bond
>    ip link set bond1 master bond0
>    ip link set bond1 nomaster
>    ip link del bond1 type bond
>    ip link add bond1 type bond

Interesting. I wonder why bond-in-bond is not forbidden...