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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:27:22 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <>
To:     David Ahern <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/8] net: bridge: add flush filtering support

On 13/04/2022 05:04, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/12/22 7:22 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a bulk
>> delete (flush) operation. This version uses a new nlmsghdr delete flag
>> called NLM_F_BULK in combination with a new ndo_fdb_del_bulk op which is
>> used to signal that the driver supports bulk deletes (that avoids
>> pushing common mac address checks to ndo_fdb_del implementations and
>> also has a different prototype and parsed attribute expectations, more
>> info in patch 03). The new delete flag can be used for any RTM_DEL*
>> type, implementations just need to be careful with older kernels which
>> are doing non-strict attribute parses. Here I use the fact that mac
> overall it looks fine to me. The rollout of BULK delete for other
> commands will be slow so we need a way to reject the BULK flag if the
> handler does not support it. One thought is to add another flag to
> rtnl_link_flags (e.g., RTNL_FLAG_BULK_DEL_SUPPORTED) and pass that flag
> in for handlers that handle bulk delete and reject it for others in core
> rtnetlink code.

Good point, it will be nice to error out with something meaningful if
bulk delete isn't supported. I'll look into it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists