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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <14104.1642384931@famine> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 18:02:11 -0800 From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> To: =?UTF-8?B?5a2Z5a6I6ZGr?= <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn> cc: vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, huyd12@...natelecom.cn Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5] net: bonding: Add support for IPV6 ns/na to balance-alb/balance-tlb mode 孙守鑫 <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn> wrote: [...] >> As for the RLB functionality (i.e., the balance-alb remote to >> local load balance), that is not implemented for IPv6 and this patch is >> not providing an implementation of the RLB logic for IPv6, so I'm >> unclear why you expect it to work, or what the "mismatch Bond6 >> specification" is. >> >> To be clear, implementing RLB for IPv6 would include what this >> patch is doing (adjusting the content of NS/NA datagrams), but a >> complete implementation requires additional logic that isn't here, e.g., >> adding IPv6 logic to the RLB rebalance code, connecting NS/NA >> manipulation to rlb_choose_channel(), and likely other things that don't >> come immediately to mind. >> >> In summary, it sounds to me like the actual bug originally >> reported (with the now-omitted diagram) would be resolved by assigning >> NS/NA datagrams to the curr_active_slave, and supporting RLB for IPv6 is >> a larger project than what's provided by this patch. Am I understanding >> correctly? > > >Thanks your comment. >For the simplify, I would like to resolve the inconsistent mac at first by >assigning NS/NA datagrams to the curr_active_slave by V6 soon. >Supporting RLB for IPv6, it looks like hard a bit and I wonder if we can >resolve it in another patch? >any comments? I'm in agreement that the first step should be solving the immediate TLB NS/NA problem, and the larger task of implementing RLB for IPv6 can be done separately. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists