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]
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:12:56 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
Cc:     Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] veth: Support bonding events

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:16:42 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > Maybe opt-out? But assuming the event is only generated on
> > active/backup switch over - when would it be okay to ignore
> > the notification?
> 
> Let me just clarify, so I'm sure I've not misunderstood you. Do you mean opt-out as in
> make it default on? IMO that would be a problem, large scale setups would suddenly
> start propagating it to upper devices which would cause a lot of unnecessary bcast.
> I meant enable it only if needed, and only on specific ports (second part is not
> necessary, could be global, I think it's ok either way). I don't think any setup
> which has many upper vlans/macvlans would ever enable this.

That may be. I don't have a good understanding of scenarios in which
GARP is required and where it's not :) Goes without saying but the
default should follow the more common scenario.

> >> My concern was about the Hangbin's alternative proposal to notify all
> >> bridge ports. I hope in my porposal I was able to avoid infinite loops.  
> > 
> > Possibly I'm confused as to where the notification for bridge master
> > gets sent..  
> 
> IIUC it bypasses the bridge and sends a notify peers for the veth peer so it would
> generate a grat arp (inetdev_event -> NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS).

Ack, I was basically repeating the question of where does 
the notification with dev == br get generated.

There is a protection in this patch to make sure the other 
end of the veth is not plugged into a bridge (i.e. is not
a bridge port) but there can be a macvlan on top of that
veth that is part of a bridge, so IIUC that check is either
insufficient or unnecessary.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists