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  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:   Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:38 +0100
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Tobias Waldekranz <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,v3 0/9] netfilter: flowtable bridge and vlan

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:56:58PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 02:45:21PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:36:15 +0100 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > Are you saying A -> B traffic won't match so it will update the cache,
> > > > since conntrack flows are bi-directional?  
> > > 
> > > Yes, Traffic for A -> B won't match the flowtable entry, this will
> > > update the cache.
> > 
> > That's assuming there will be A -> B traffic without B sending a
> > request which reaches A, first.
> B might send packets to A but this will not get anywhere. Assuming
> TCP, this will trigger retransmissions so B -> A will kick in to
> refresh the entry.
> Is this scenario that you describe a showstopper?

I have been discussing the topology update by tracking fdb updates
with the bridge maintainer, I'll be exploring extensions to the
existing fdb_notify() infrastructure to deal with this scenario you
describe. On my side this topology update scenario is not a priority
to be supported in this patchset, but it's feasible to support it
later on.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists